Nasher

This is Collingwood's response: We're going to suspend him for all the rest of the matches of the year! exceptfor theonesthatactuallymatter Yeah, we're really super-dooper serious about this! butnotsoserioustoletitimpactourflagaspirations. Their sanction is just a big insult to everyone's intelligence, really. Edit: Not sure if the sanction imposed was actually by Collingwood or the AFL, but either way it stinks. Penalise him properly or not at all.

It's easy to forget that he didn't start his playing career here. 23 games for Geelong, 99 for MFC. In the last 5 seasons Beamer's played in 17 wins, two draws and 52 losses. Good luck Beamer - you've hit your straps as a player right at the beginning of something special. If you can eek out another 100, you should see a lot more success.

How about the fact that he said right from the beginning that he will not deal until years end?

Not sure I agree with that. You could in theory lay a particularly crass bump or shepherd behind the play. I wouldn't call that deliberate.

I love having this discussion over and over again. Our job is to impartially enforce the rules of the site, it's not to be opinion neutral on footy matters. Maybe it should be (I'd hand in my quit letter immediately if that were the case), but it's not. Tell Andy or Jack if you don't like it.

Exactly, we're back to calling Scully a liar again. The fun never stops.

+1.

It could be that we stroke each others egos (btw I wouldn't know Artie or rpfc if I tripped over their battered corpses in the street), or it could just be that we share similar views on most issues. There are members on this forum who I agree with most of the time, members who I agree with sometimes and members who I rarely see eye to eye with. This is just what happens when you have a forum with a lot of diversity.

No, that's not right. All the panic merchants were saying that he'd already signed and that he was lying when he said he hadn't. That's what I (and many others) took issue with, and it's why I'm now carrying a smug look on my face. It's been shown to be completely unsubstantiated with facts and quotes from relevant parties as opposed to he-said-she-saids, thereby being proven to be false beyond any shadow of a doubt. Of course there's still the possibility he will sign with GWS. It's not truly over until he signs one way or the other, but at least people might (hopefully) ease up a bit on the character assassination now.

He may well do, but I think if he's that far down the 'choices' list for a spot on our in our side, I doubt it would be different anywhere else.

Col Sylvia too, right?

Me too. I thought all along that Scully would stay (and seethed every time RR and friends directly or indirectly called him a liar) but I think this latest development is the most encouraging news we've had yet. The offers are now real rather than rumoured, don't (at face value) seem miles apart, and Scully's management look to be being open and honest with the club and the media. I've got the champagne cork ready to be popped.

That's hardly a glowing endorsement though is it? Doggo said in the next post that he rated McNamara ahead of Cheney too. The problem is that nobody's said which players he's better than that are actually remotely close to being in the side. I thought McNamara looked okay in the couple of matches he played for Melbourne, but really he's so far down the pecking order in both the roles he's played (defender and mid) that I can't see how he could possibly make it. He's never been in our best 30 players and I doubt he ever will be. This was my stance last year and it hasn't changed. Just one of the thousands of players who go through the elite system that just aren't quite good enough.

Heh. I know everyone has their price, but I'd price Gawn out of their reach. Too important to our future side.

Or the team is young and inexperienced and has not gotten close to its peak yet.

Any possibility that it's because we've been worse than all the other Victorian teams since Bailey's been at the helm?

Is this a real argument? I'm usually a fan of yours BRFE so I'm just hoping your post is taking the piss. Scully pre- and post- draft was said to be one of the most dedicated players seen at junior level. Wanting to play for coin just does not drive that kind of dedication, it has to be internal. And how do you propose we "look at their motivations" for playing footy? No kid is ever going to say "yeah, I'm really just in it for the coin" and I can't see any other way other than asking the question. The notion that it's our fault because we chose Scully over Martin (or whoever) in the first place is up there with the biggest load of nonsense I've read in this whole Scully saga and that takes some doing. And once more, we're running with the assumption that Scully is going to take the money and run and doesn't want to be at Melbourne. Yet another hanging before the trial.

Usually when the commentators talk about the "Selwoods" they mean the "Joels" anyway. The rest of the family are irrelevant.

Like who? Roos, and...?

My three year old son just scared the living sheet out of me by secretly lurking in the (very dark) bathroom playing with the glow stick he got at a birthday party today. Jesus effing Christ. I'm not certain which of us was more surprised when he came wandering out as I wandered in, but I'm pretty sure it was me.

I'd take out of it that Melbourne have a bye this week, and the players who need the run and are eligible for one will get one. It means stuff all in the context of who will be playing next week. Presumably when MFC have a bye, there's some rules (or at the very least, a gentlemen's agreement) about which players are eligible to line up for Casey. Much like when Casey are playing finals after the MFC season has finished.

Erm. "Mods" didn't. High Tower did. If you think mods don't have a right to post their own personal opinion without it being representative of the general moderating collective, you'd be sadly mistaken.

If they're absolutely desperate we might get away with that. Can't see it being anything other than a last resort though. And personally I'd settle for a lot less for two players we don't want that we're otherwise going to be stuck with. Frankly I'd take anything at all, even if it was picks we won't use.

Exactly. Jack Watts is currently by far the best crumber in our forward line. It'd be nice if we could muster up a small to do it somewhere along the line so we don't have to use our KPFs like that. I'd say the man for the job is not presently on our list.

It's amazing how each time someone hears a rumour it's somehow more credible than the last one isn't it? There's only one party who would even know and has an interest in this getting out one way or the other, and that party is being driven by a serial liar. I suppose it might register some time.