Nasher

If I were more talented as an artist, I'd draw some hilarious graphic about how performances are always perfect or pathetic in the eyes of mug footy supporters and how there's no grey area in between at all. As it turns I'm neither a good artist nor a good comedian, but at least I'm not a big whiner like half of you lot. This match plonks firmly in that big fat grey area for mine.

I've got no problem with us wanting our recruiters to be the best of the best, but your way of measuring who's a good recruiter and who isn't sucks. Every single recruiting chief in the business will fail if your measure of success on which guns we missed out on.

Please bump the post where you said this at the time.

How fortunate that we are playing next week then.

But he was dreadful the week before. I've no problem with sending a subtle message without actually dropping him. Watts was a new player after his stint as the sub early in the year. As he matures and develops consistency in his game, measures like this won't be necessary.

Beamer. Nobody else will get close.

Indeed.

Yes. Did you?

Can't be bothered doing votes this week, but wanted to add my vote of confidence for Blease. He's a serious jet; definitely worth the wait. Would be my 6, Garland 5.

We beat a team whom the stats suggest are about our equal with experience and age by 30 points. It wasn't a polished performance by any stretch and there were some very disappointing moments in the game, especially in the even numbered quarters, but pathetic is a gross exaggeration.

Why's that?

You guys have got to be the biggest bunch of whiners I have ever witnessed.

Agreed. Far, far worse than the Geelong game, where we were within a whisker of breaking our own record for the largest ever loss.

The company I work for (in the same industry) went through a lengthy and painful ACCC investigation a couple of years or so ago based on your point two. After over a year of a lot of people's time and several million dollars spent, my company was cleared of any wrongdoing. The article on EW suggests they're taking legal action which sounds like what would happen after an investigation, but given I'd heard nothing of the investigation (ours was well publicised) I'm just guessing that they're being investigated because one of their competitors has squealed. In short there's a good chance it's just nothing, and either way it'll most likely be a few years before anything comes of it. I agree with RobbieF's post though in that it seems a large sponsorship for a company with a relatively small turnover. I hope that the club has done the right thing.

Anyone who voted Grimes has put the cart waaaaaaaayyyyyy before the horse. I'd prefer it if our captain was a certainty to actually have an AFL career. He's obviously got a lot of potential but he currently averages eight games a season. He's got a total of 32 games to his name - he's had no continuity whatsoever. Trengove may or may not be ready to lead the side, but at least you could say that he's a well established player in the side.

Can someone please explain to me why Royal's comment was so, so dreadful? I'm yet to read anything in this thread that makes me think anything other than WGAF.

The idea of trading Jurrah is wrong on so many levels.

? - We can't (and don't want to) trade the Frawleys, Trengoves etc because nobody will offer enough to make it worth our while - We can't trade the Dunns, Bates, Marics or Warnocks. This isn't because I don't want to: I'd love to trade Lynden Dunn for Brendon Goddard like "tatu" suggested, but somehow I don't think St. Kilda would buy it. I'd take GWS's pick 108 or whatever for Matty Bate, but about one of these trades get pulled off each year - if it's us this year then I'll do backflips. Best we start getting used to the fact that Dunn will be on our list next year and if Bate isn't it will only be because we delisted him in contract. Maric and Warnock's only saviours will be the draft, nobody is going to buy them in a trade. - According to you, we can't trade Petterd either because there's so much upside or whatever. In my eyes that doesn't leave any class of player that we can actually trade. If I've missed it, then which is it?

Collingwood will do what's best for Collingwood, and clearly it's best for Collingwood that Mick doesn't coach one of their opposition teams next year. If Malthouse has signed a contract that waives his own right to coach next year then Collingwood will rightfully do everything in their power to enforce it. Our only hope is that he hasn't signed such a deal, or he hires a lawyer who can prove (against the CFC lawyers) that it's an unreasonable restraint of trade or something like that. And this is all just assuming that he does actually want to coach and that he does want to coach our team. I still see it as a very long shot.

I agree - the premise is right but I'm not that keen on the particular player. It's nice to see a trade thread that makes a reasonable attempt at a well balanced trade rather than one ridiculously weighted in Melbourne's favour.

+1

Question for those who say Petterd is an untouchable - if Petterd is in the untouchable group then who can we trade? In my opinion he's the sort of middle ground player that is most tradeable. You'd never get enough to cover the loss of Trengove, Frawley et al in a trade, and Bate, Dunn et al would fetch nothing worth bothering with. It's the middle part of the list that is most vulnerable to trade and that's where Petterd firmly sits. Like I said I wouldn't actively seek to trade him as I don't see the point, but I'd be willing to listen to offers.

That's a bit like calling arsenic a sweetener.

I'd listen to any offers, but I wouldn't actively seek to trade him.

Because it's still his job. If he's not doing that bit, why bother doing any of it? He might as well just go on leave for the few weeks (or whatever) and just sit at home watching the cricket in his jocks until it's time to start his new job. As long as he's still on the payroll as CEO, then he should still be having CEO input and making CEO decisions. He's not gone until he's gone. I don't know about you, but I've never resigned from a job and been immediately discharged of all my duties. If anything it's always been the opposite - "quick - get all this stuff done and handed over as quickly as possible before you leave".