Nasher

You are just proving that you have no idea about how debt works. Debt only grows like that if you're not making the payments, in which case you're completely cactus because the banks will foreclose on your assets faster than you can say "accepting mediocrity". This would have happened months or years ago; the fact that the MFC is still operating (or more to the point, no mass bailout was required from the AFL) means that this clearly wasn't the case. If you're making the payments, the worst case scenario is that you treat water on the debt and it doesn't come down at all i.e. you're just paying off the interest and none of the capital. This is why it's such a drain on cash flow. But the debt won't snowball in the manner you're talking about.

This is one of those instances where the wrong logic will accidently lead to the correct conclusion.

G'day, mine's Deestroy All.

I didn't see the play today, but the stats don't support your assertion on Hilfenhaus bowling rubbish (most economical of the full time bowlers). Can I get a second opinion? Rhino, HT? On Johnson, what you're describing is pretty much how he's always bowled. I've always found it incredible with the number of wickets he gets with a nothing ball a foot outside off. His biggest weapon has always been deceit by pace rather than consistent line and length. Against real quality opposition, if he's not at his 100% best then I think he's always going to look dreadful.

Price, as in, the size of the number that appears to the right of the $.

The Australian selectors have been showing for years that they are willing to persevere with their best players and back them in to find form, regardless of what every mug in Australia thinks (including many ex-players). Think back to Mark Taylor's run on the way up to retirement, with many other examples since. They have been more than vindicated with their decision here. Hussey (and Haddin who I didn't want in - how embarrassing) has stood up in a massive way when the team needed him most. I couldn't be more happy for him. And you'll find that a lot of big innings are built on the back of some good fortune early in the innings, and there are a lot of innings that end prematurely on the back of some damn rotten luck; that's just the nature of the game. It could just have easily have been Ponting saluting the crowd as he walked off, if it wasn't for a damn unlucky nick down the leg side. The only thing that goes down in history is the final score.

Look, I agree that if you're already coughing up $600 then another $50 shouldn't be too hard. I have no problem with that. It was the "I care for the club more than you" argument that made me want to throw up.

Love for the club isn't the only variable - money holds different value than it does to others. I could, theoretically, love the club more than you but also value my money more. The opposite could be true - I could donate more money to the club despite a lesser love for it just because I'm more generous (or more frivellous) in general. daisycutter is right, this is nothing but a pissing contest, and a pretty disappointing one at that.

Thanks, you have illustrated my point perfectly.

I only keep bringing it up because I'm not sure everyone can tell the difference.

I'm happy for the club to go in to debt again if improves the overall position of the club.

This thread fails the quality test.

All in all I think Green as captain with Moloney and Davey on his left and right makes a pretty good mix. Between the three of them all bases are covered - leading by example, strong communication, brilliance on the field and some tough love where necessary. I don't think any one of them individually would make the perfect captain - I guess this is why leadership teams exist. I thought Neitz's advice about concentrating on the first two and last two steps was interesting. To me it's one of those things that is obvious now that it's been pointed out, but wasn't beforehand. Thanks for the post; I love getting insight like this.

Indeed, and that probably boils down to the same point about his temperament. Players who are "roughed up" would usually be the ones who react negatively.

Agree (of course). These are the sorts of things good leaders do, it's not some task assigned to the guy with the title of 'captain'. On Davey, whenever I think 'Davey as captain', I start thinking "arguing with the umpire and giving away a 50m and certain goal", which happened more than once in 2010. He's one of our best players and is obviously respected at the club, so he probably deserves a better assessment than that, but that's all that springs to mind. If I were choosing captains, he'd not be in the running for this reason.

Obviously Petterd is the new skipper.

Trying to break the record for the lowest years-on-list-to-senior-matches-played ratio? If they draft him that will make it year number 5.

Agree.

Adding white is the cardinal sin, but adding pale blue is fine? FMD. Can't wait to hear WYL's thoughts on this.

Contracted players play where and when they're told. Even so, as a professional cricketer he's hardly going to turn down the opportunity to play, especially when he's busy trying to get selected for the test side.

Once again that is beside the point.

I still can't see how that would be any different if they'd done it three weeks ago rather than now. They'd still be paying out his contract but he'd have a whole extra draft to be eligible for.

If they'd delisted him before the ND, he'd still have the same opportunity he has now, with the additional the chance in the ND. Whether you think it likely or not that he'd be picked up is completely irrelevant - he was not given the opportunity to find out.

I aree. I have no issue with the decision itself, but the timing is a bit off IMO. As a club, they're not giving the player a fair opportunity to restart his career. He might not have much possibility of restarting it anyway, but that's the player's decision to make.

I want to know this too. I said I was in favour of delisting him at the end of season and didn't get a lot of support, but my criteria for retention is pretty simple: can this player be part of our best side? I don't see whose position in the side he contending for, so he's gone. I wouldn't bother rookie listing him either. Usually the answer was "but he showed some potential in a couple of games in 2009". Whoop-de-doo.