Nasher

It's not a false bid. They can quite easily be held accountable for it. If (when) we choose not to hold them accountable for it it's because we value Jack enough not to.

How would that be draft tampering?

Uhh... I would.

Nominations happen before the trade period, so no.

Had he been a VFL listed player I might agree with you, but he's not. The bottom line is he's ineligible to play in the AFL for four weeks - who cares whether the VFL happens to play or not during that time? It seems fair to me. Having to sit out 7 weeks of AFL football to serve a 4 match ban is what would've been BS. This site would be in meltdown if that happened to an MFC player. I'm glad the VFL tribunal showed a little bit of intelligence in this decision.

Read rpfc's post about why we won't have to pay Pick 1 under any circumstance, even if we had it.

Ahh, the old negotiate by media stunt. One of the most annoying aspects of professional sport.

He's not here. Let's not involve a guy who has not involved himself. Let sleeping dogs lie and all that.

And when someone does a knee in the first minute of the game?

That's a question we can only speculate on without knowing the dynamics of the playing list, but I'd say that given that the LG is playing group selected and the playing group shunned Sylvia and Moloney, I'd say the young players are not expecting to learn much from them.

CLARK I think Clark was just looking for an excuse to leave Brisbane and the "go home" thing sounded like a good one. Once again, the player has to actually want to leave before he'll start entertaining offers, so I ask again, what's Bennell's motivation to leave?

What would be his motivation for leaving? I don't reckon a distant cousin he's never met would be much of a drawcard. It's okay to "dare to dream" but I wish we'd stick to exploring options that are actually plausible.

I don't agree with the idea of trading them - pick 34 and 35 don't thrill me and that's what we'd be looking at. Like them or not, they're our big bodied, senior players. Play them until they either pull their fingers out, or get passed by someone better.

I realise JMac was a point of contention but anyone who argues that Bailey should've kept Robertson - at risk of sounding like B-H - watches a different game to me. Watch the videos with Robbo's Neeld interviews on the MFC site. Neeld is no doubt just taking a light hearted jab at Robbo about his next tackle being his first one, but that is without a doubt why Robertson got left behind as a player.

What's so outrageous about leaving Tapscott out? I'm a fan, but I'm not sure what he adds to the team that is so irreplaceable at the moment, and he only seems able to play at max intensity for 3/4 of the game at present.

Personally, I agree with the post someone made last week that we should just change captains every week, so whoever played best last week is the captain this week... For a non-facetious answer, I agree with Rangey and Ben.

This is one aspect that is very frustrating about the VFL affiliation system.

In an attempt to maintain team balance: Out: Sellar, Tapscott In: Fitzpatrick, Bennell I want our second ruck to be able to take a mark, Sellar can't. I'd still prefer Martin, but I don't expect him to be in a condition to walk straight back in. Fitzpatrick is apparently coming on in leaps and bounds at Casey, so I'd like to see that change. Clint Bizkit reckons he's not the answer and he's probably right, but he can't be any worse than Sellar. I think on balance Petterd is probably a more suitable replacement for Tapscott who is struggling, but I chose Bennell instead for two reasons - firstly because his form has been first rate in the last two weeks by all reports so he needs to be rewarded, and because he adds pace which we need. There's no doubt there's still a number of NQRs in the side (like Bate and Dunn), but I don't think now is the time for wholesale changes. The effort of those guys have been good and largely sustained so they stay in the side for me. The idea of dropping Sylvia and Moloney is fanciful - at the end of the day these guys are in our top few players and I'd only like to see changes that actually strengthen the side, and we've got to be kidding if we think dropping Moloney and putting Couch in strengthens the side. I also think Bail had a dreadful game, I'd like to back him in to turn it around. One of those weeks where I reckon I'll change my mind a number of times before the week is through.

Those who are hanging it on Morton are just proving that some people can't see through their own pre-conceived ideas. He was about 18th on our list of problems today, so it's pretty funny that some people are choosing that to focus on as an issue.

I'm more disappointed about Gysberts' injury and Viney's. Viney is a tough kid and there's no doubt that come years end he'll still be ahead of most of the kids his age. I rate Gysberts and I'm impatient about his development, so I find this latest setback very frustrating.

Morton is one of those lucky bastards who has an IQ through the roof to go with his talent, so if he's "cottoning on" quicker than everyone else then that's probably not surprising. I think the intent is there and the confidence is improving and his use of the ball is improving as a result. He made some excellent decisions both in traffic and in the open today. As B-H said - mistakes are forgivable so long as he keeps doing the right "fundamental" things.

Definitely bombed today after an excellent game last week. I don't know what 'normal' is for him at the moment.

Precisely. If you were feeling a bit "scarred", you'd sure as hell be talking yourself out of it now.

The great thing about CLUBS is that sometimes you get to meet influential people who can help you meet your own goals. I think the difference between here between this deal and the Visy fiasco is that in this case, Judd has made a legitimate investment; i.e. he has paid good money to get involved. With the Visy deal he got paid money for seemingly doing sweet FA. The Visy deal was a clear leg up; this is a business deal that carries the same risks and rewards as any other business deal. The fact that he did it through an influential member of the club has nothing to do with it - condemning that would be the same as saying a player is not allowed to hook up with another player's sister - after all, they'd probably have never met if the club hadn't been involved. An absolute non-issue.

Obviously I'm too stupid to pick up on your subtlety then. I just took what you said at face value, and if that isn't want you meant then I'll be buggered if I know what you did mean.