Nasher

If he played like that there'd be no complaints. Seeing him more aggressive towards his teammates at training than he is on game day against the opposition just makes his "weaknesses" even more aggrevating.

I think it's an idea so crazy that it certainly won't work, but I like the idea from an "imagine that" point of view.

He probably wouldn't be interested given his own business interests. As interim CEO I assume he'd be on consultant coin (i.e. costing a fortune), so a short term lark would suit him. Nonetheless it's good to know that the club is in the hands of a man with many years of relevant experience and success while it finds a suitable permanent candidate.

Your post was barely readable. I don't expect English Professor level grammar, but I do expect people to pay attention to what they're posting. You clearly didn't.

Wow. Still just getting used to that iPad are you champ?

On the contrary, I reckon it's been a decent discussion. I haven't seen much personal bickering at all?

Fark me. If we're going to give up on a player before he is even in his first proper contract, the club may as well fold now.

No it wasn't. Look I was upset at the end of the WC loss too, but this is pure rot. We were competitive for a half against West Coast, we literally did not fire a shot against Essendon from start to finish (even if you ingore the fact that West Coast are a better side than Essendon). You're one of those people who revises history more as more time passes.

The idea is that they're ready made players who can play a role. I fully support(ed) the theory of bringing in Byrnes in particular; we had zero competent small forwards on our list unless you count Davey, but who would have come the end of last year? It was an obvious need. I'm not quite ready to stamp the idea a failure yet.

Now we're getting somewhere.

Yes it is.

Too *early* to call it? Pfft. Some flogs esteemed football analysts called it on draft night. You're way down the queue pal.

My thoughts exactly.

I like it. I don't have time to sit and watch replays, so if I'm watching neutral games, I like being able to see in real time which game might be more interesting.

The club does not need its best players walking.

Russell who?He's a different beast to Robertson anyway. He's a much better runner and works defensively, but he's a poorer shot for goal. I still support the idea of him rotating between midfield and forward to keep the opposition on their toes.

I'm of the view that Neeld needs to be shown the door immediately before this group's confidence and ability to turn it around is destroyed completely, if it's not already. I didn't think it was possible to feel more hopeless than I did in 2008, but zing! Here it is.

I first read that as "fart stick" - I was about to award you with the prize of "best new insult". As for what happens if we lose to GWS? Nothing. We're a worse side than they are, so it would simply just be meeting my expectations.

Delaying all judgement on the defenders until we have a competent midfield under a competent coach.

Biggest winner of the day is the swear jar.

How is he going to get the requisite tank if he's always the sub?

Haha, that's certainly something new. Too easy for him, is it? Love it.

He's not banned.

This.

All I will say is that a lack of traceable evidence doesn't mean it's not true. TRF's version of events is pretty close to the ones I have "come across" as well. Not saying my endorsement of that version makes it true either of course - people can judge for themselves - but I'd be careful about dismissing someone's version of events out of hand just because we believe the person may have an "agenda".