Nasher

Opel Ampera, Chevy Volt... Holden should've called it the Holden Ohm.

This is my last post on this topic because it's obvious the point is being completely lost. I don't think a single person has said the idea of a fund raiser is a poor idea or that other clubs don't do it. It's purely McLardy's statement that we need to raise money in this fashion because we cant pay 100% TPP if we don't. Chook do you think it would be a good thing if paying 100% was completely dependant on the well to do tipping in? Because indirectly, that's what McLardy said.As I said before, I'm satisfied with the response that it's just dressing to make the idea of appealing to those with the coin. But we can't seriously be surprised or upset with people for taking his word literally.

It tells me that our "best teams" played nearly 50 years ago and it's probably time we moved on to 2012 2013 style football.

Because if it's true that we need to rattle the tin to pay 100% of the TPP like McLardy said then we're in dire trouble; that's something that should alarm every member and not just the Foundation members. It could be indicative of a huge problem because as we all know, fund raisers generally aren't a sustainable way of... well, raising funds. My view is that I agree that he probably just said it to dress the point up (it sounds a lot better than "to help pay the senior executive" - who'd want to donate for that?) and I think that's a fair position to take. I reckon rpfc is right when he says it's just for general budget fattening and doesn't have a specific purpose. Equally though, I think taking McLardy's comment at face value is just as valid a position and in that case the questions being asked are fair and reasonable.

It can be done - I'm sure I found a feature somewhere that just listed the posters with the most number of likes a few weeks ago, but I haven't been able to find it again since. I can manually query the database to work it out otherwise.

While I (very sadly) got the reference, it's hardly surprising some may find you incomprehensible, rpfc.

I'll put it out there that I'm not a fan of this idea. I don't like popularity contests as a rule and it's not just because I'm not very popular. Posters get rewarded with good posts now through the "like" system, so I don't think a big love in is necessary, useful or even interesting - everyone knows who the good posters are. Might see what the other admins think...

Short memories? That was a freakin' lifetime ago.

I'm shocked! Again.

Thank Dog it's some other club feeling the heat with player departures this year.

One of them is negated by the loss of Green, so only one of them will contribute an extra spot on the list.

Fortunately we haven't got 30 spuds, then.

I don't know about saving them, just bought themselves another year. Even then I think it's debatable - a quick head count based on what we need to get done in the off season says to me at least one of them will probably need to go.

More defenders? What about adding someone who actually plugs a gaping hole?

Absolutely agree. The faux toughness has always given me the somethings. I also think now that he'll probably stay, though it's such a shift in my position that it's almost painful.

Oh God. I don't know any more.

I saw the title of this thread and instantly thought, Round 22 2011, Adelaide Oval.

I expect there are more sadists from 17 other clubs than there are Essendon supporters in that 5000

Didn't see to a detailed enough level to give votes, but thought Howe was a class above for the whole match and Dunn was probably the best of the rest.

Who is rewriting history? Nothing has been said so far that even stretched the truth. old dee might've used the wrong word but I fully agree with his sentiment; learn a bit about context and when it's appropriate to spill your guts and when it's appropriate to be quiet and respectful.

Goes down as a 150 game player and that's on the back of true dedication. Well done Brad, it's an exceptional effort. Also interesting that his career score was 120 goals 77 behinds, that's not a bad conversion rate for someone that I remember being an unreliable shot for goal.

That's garbage, adc. He isn't leaving any decisions to his manager; who would do that? "Mr Manager sir, I'll play for whatever club you tell me to next year". Please. He clearly meant that he was leaving the contract negotiation to his manager. That's a long way from leaving the decision to his manager.

Jones didn't come from anywhere near as low a base as Bail though. Jones had too many rushed "kick and hope" type kicks; his issues were more around decisions and timing. Bail just misses the target. I haven't thought about it very hard at all, but off the top of my head I can't think of any players in recent times who have managed to transform their kicking to such a degree that Bail needs to. I only draw examples like Ward, Godfrey et al who started out terrible and weren't any better by the end.

When I read the contents of the interview I thought I'd post something like "definitely gone" for a laugh, but it seems demonoid and jumbo already beat me to the joke.

Can you just "demote" someone to the rookie list? Presumably it means delisting him and re-drafting him on to the rookie list, which also presumably means going through all the drafts in the process. I don't know that there's a massive risk in someone else pinching him, nonetheless putting him through the drafts doesn't seem to me to send a good message to the player. I guess another option is to just wait and see - how good an idea will we have on the success of the surgery by the last list lodgement in October? With all that said, I think the most sensible and logical answer is a one year contract.