Nasher

?

While I'm supportive of (and pleased by) the social aspect of this decision, I highly doubt it's any more than a side effect of a decision that was otherwise 100% business. The current administration hasn't done anything to suggest it operates in any way other than a shrewd one. I'm surprised you're not prepared to cut them some slack and let this play out before flying off the handle.

You don't think it reasonable that people's view might evolve as life experience grows? 2010 for me was 50% of my adult life ago and I can tell you that my knowledge on the topic at hand and desire to explore it was precisely zero.

Very pleasing news. Hopefully there is a plan to minimise or ideally negate the impact to the bottom line. The argument that this does nothing to address the social issue because someone else will just pick up the licenses is just rubbish. The best way to initiate change is to lead it, and that's what the MFC have done. Let's see how many other AFL clubs are still operating these venues in 3 years time.

It's almost like Lever is only 22, and only 2 games in to his new club.

In the report it said the Brisbane doctor was consulted. Probably lucky we weren't playing Carlton or Lewis would probably be out for 3 weeks for whatever he did.

As we're all well aware of, crushing teams does rely on the crushee giving way as much as the crusher getting the job done. I'm not convinced the Brisbane side last night lent itself to a crushing, but I'm also not convinced I'm not just telling myself that to avoid facing the truth.

A couple of points: To you it's good info, to everyone else it's information from somebody called "Beetle" and we have no way of judging the veracity of it other than your word. It's not personal, but people are entitled to be sceptical. We have seen a *lot* of this type of information before and it varies from correct, to a mangled chinese whisper, to an outright lie. Often the poster could be correctly relaying what they heard but their source got the wrong end of the stick. Secondly, people will be doubtful about this particular item because it just sounds unlikely after the year he had. On top of that, it beggars belief that no other club would be interested. There's no need to get pissy about it when people question your post, it is inevitable and perfectly reasonable for that to happen. Try to understand a little bit where people are coming from.

I was expecting a feature article on Fritsch, and what I read was a bunch of dribble about the Watts trade with a few anecdotes about Fritsch. The quality of journalism in the AFL is pus.

It's not breaking news that Watts is a good player who can really turn it on from time to time. That never was, and never will be the issue.

Please don't present speculation as fact, as you did in your previous post. You would be surprised at how quickly garbage can get traction in the cesspit of the football media.

I'm not blind but I do believe we genuinely clash with Essendon. If I'm staring closely I can tell them apart clearly, but if my eyes are darting about all over the place following the play or I'm relying on peripheral vision to see, for a split second they look the same. I can't be the only one with this problem. It would be worse for people new to the game who don't know what they're looking for. I don't think we clash with the other nominal clashes (Carlton, St Kilda, Adelaide etc) but given that I can see the clash with Essendon, I will take the AFL at their word that some do see a clash. Unfortunately it's impossible to see through others eyes. I thought the AFL were taking the piss last year though when they let us wear that jumper that was traditional at the front and red at the back. I wasn't complaining because I love our traditional jumper, but it definitely muddied the waters regarding eliminating clashes - can't see how wearing that jumper clashed any less than the traditional one. Either that jumper should have been deemed unacceptable, or there was no clash to start with. Both can't be simultaneously true.

Macdonald.

Yes, the one year contract is a clear indicator that the FD think there's a chance he'll flop, for whatever reason (be it off field or on). Again though, my response would be 'who cares?' - he clearly has the talent for AFL footy and we cost ourselves nothing to get him.

Even if he ends up another Michie etc - so what? We're just as likely, or more, to get that player with the pick we used in the draft. There is literally only upside in this trade.

I don't think it's official until he's been on the Demonland podcast.

If we finish bottom 4, there will be plenty of other questions to be asked first! It becomes an interesting feedback loop when a trade for a player involves a future pick. The player in this case should improve our prospects for next year, thereby automatically devaluing the pick we're trading him for. And Adelaide will now be hexing us big time in the hope that its value grows, so it adds another dimension to the rivalry. Good times!

I'll let the remainder of the trade period play out before giving any thought to whether we should have held out or not. If pick 35 is on-traded, that points to there being value in getting the deal done quickly rather than holding everything up.

There's no way that could be allowed to happen again, surely. If that isn't draft tampering, then draft tampering isn't a thing.

I don't understand why it's a huge gamble. Surely MFC supporters would recognise it's the draft that is a gamble, not gun 21 year olds. We traded off lottery tickets for a known quantity. If someone said to you, "I'll give you a million dollars, or two tickets in to a draw to win 30 million", which one would you take?

Almost needs two threads. The "f yeah, we got him" and the "waaaaaaah, we paid overs". I'm in the former camp and don't really want my mood sullied by the latter.

Well I for one won't mourn the loss of draft picks when it's a known gun we're getting. Stoked!

Hey!

I did. Have been happily married for 12 years this year.

You can't tease me like that, faulty. I still got a notification that you had quoted me!