Nasher

You're barking up the wrong tree. WM is Scully's sponsor.

It looks as if the MFC have made the full suite of eligible players available this time around. I'm particularly interested in how the boys who've had a bit of a taste of AFL level footy go in the rest of the VFL finals, in particular Gawn, Fitzpatrick, McDonald and Nicholson. I reckon Bail is the only one in that side that doesn't belong there. It's a stroke of luck for Casey that he's eligible. Good luck Casey.

He'll be re-signed in due course IMO. Needs a new coach more than any player on our list.

Read the book first, have an opinion on it second. From what you've said it's painfully obvious you haven't read it.

Couldn't have put it better (that's why I didn't ).

If 186 happened because select players wanted to make a stand, then each accomplice should've been swept out the door with Bailey. And I'd be completely indiscriminate about it.

LOL.

I'm prepared to believe that poster on Demonland when that poster on Demonland happens to be the player in question's sponsor.

That was the joke I think

latter category for me.

I found that I rarely agreed with anything he said and that he seemed to me to be anti-everything, but with the benefit of hindsight it would seem he was right on many aspects, and I recognise that I tend to view the glass as being half full when it's 3/4 empty. Either way, it seemed odd that such a regular poster would cease reading altogether so suddenly (no record of even views since '09). The human in me () hopes that it's just because he decided he had better things to do and not something worse than that.

On an unrelated note, why is it that nobody is ever just "gone", they're always "GONE"?

Yes! Because journalists would never stake their reputations on anything unless they were 100% sure it was fact, Steve Silvagni stammered that they offered him a contract in October while nervously glancing around the room, and Tom Scully is a big fat liar liar, pants on fire who kicks like Simon Godfrey and has a shonky knee and we're better off without him. There! In two posts, you and I have just covered about 4 huge threads in two posts. High five.

In fairness to you and just about everyone else, Garland did actually look like a complete vegetable in his first couple of games. Would've taken a seriously keen eye to spot the talent there. A good lesson in not counting chickens too early all the same. Edit: Also, I miss mo64. Whatever happened to him? His last activity was in late 2009 and his ceasing activity was very sudden. Hope nothing bad became of him.

Exactly - you can't take three players who are 33.33 out of 100 and add them together to get a 100/100 player. Their worth reduces if you put them together because you've then got three spuds taking up valuable spaces on your list, not just one.

What's the story there? I didn't pay any attention to them after a while, but I thought he really looked the goods early in the season.

This is the classic "draft him because he has a funny name" syndrome, as seen with Serhat Temel and Majak Daw in previous years. If Ah Chee was any good, GC at the very least would've given him a second year on the rookie list.

Given that GC had a bigger list than anyone else, I'd suggest that their delistees are the least likely to be any good, as they don't have the same "we'd really love to keep you, but..." problem. I'm usually not that interested in other club's discards at the best of times, even less so in this case.

That's not nothing to do with what you said the first time. Just to remind you, your exact words were: I.e. you said - We didn't win any games we were expected to win - We didn't win any of the games we were expected to lose Given that we must have been expected to win or expected to lose every game, if you combine the logic of those two statements, then what you've said is that we didn't any games.

Why would any club pay anything more than a token trade for Warnock, when they could just wait for the MFC to delist him (which is inevitable) and use their last draft pick on him? Walsh trade, thanks. For Matty Bate, I'd settle for a Jade Rawlings (to North) trade.

Have you ever stood in the rooms with him, or in the huddle?

I've been an administrator of this site for almost six years, and the first time I ever actually told anyone about it (most who know me well figured it out) was about six months ago. I felt like such a retarded dweeb. Will never do again.

Gahahahaha. As will I, from now on.

I'm struggling to see your point re: Warnock playing as a loose defender. His best attributes are his size and strengh, and he's a poor to very poor user of the ball (significantly worse than Rivers). Not what you'd look for in the loosish defender role. Not trying to be a smartarse here - but does the fact that Rivers played 20 games this year and Warnock 4 make you wonder whether you've missed something?