sue

makes you wonder if the MFC's drafting policy shouldn't be based on assuming the Devils will scoop all the talent in the short term. https://archive.md/https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/a-footy-club-meant-to-unite-tasmanians-is-bitterly-dividing-them-20251024-p5n50t.html

While I might disagree with the odd point, @waynewussell makes a lot of sense. If they are going to penalise players for not standing on the mark, how about making it clear to players and spectators where the mark actually is AND stop the player with the ball from playing from a position miles inboard from a reasonable line of play.

While I am a long time critic of the bounce, I cannot for the life of me understand why the AFL would not retain it for the start of a match. My only reserv ation about doing it at the start of each quarter that in a tight game a bad bounce at the start of Q4 might have too much infkluence on the outcome.

I wonder which other club squads would send such a nice note to another squad. How about a poll?

I pay a substantial sub for an on-line version of a newspaper that I trust to have fewer axes to grind than the Herald Sun. On the rare occasions I want to read something in the Herald (always MFC footy articles pointed to from here) I have absolutely no scruples about stealing it. I'm not ever going to be tempted to ever take out a sub. So Mr Murdoch loses nothing when I get to read the words of wisdom from his footy journos. (That's the only downside.) And as DeeDee says if a library puts a paper on pressreader, they do that with permsission and may pay untold amounts of $ for the priviledge. Journalism has more problems that this.

You obviously have a different threshold on your cringometer than I have Dr G. I saw it as a tongue in cheek comment. But c'est la vie.

I think not and no

Where's the "All of the Above" option?

Given all this, much of which will be known to GWS, you have to ask how is GWS planning to manage things.

He actually went on to say: “I think if you do the points it actually comes out to a number one pick." Not as cringworthy as you suggested.

Simple. They have a bigger membership than us.

Looks good to me. Is anyone still calling for Lamb to be roasted?

It's also in an email to those members who live happily without social media.

Somehow I think you'd have said that if we got 6 first round picks.

Lighten up everyone. Sometimes it feels like Marvin The Paranoid Android posts under several names here.

Like CP5?

"The Petracca negotiations are moving in the right direction." I just report. I'm not biased. I don't have an axe to grind.

Wrong thread for this but: If that's the case, our negotiating team know this presumably. So why no BH?

Imperative?!

Recenly joins Demonland, chooses a name so similar to Demon Forever - I smell a rat (and it's not humourous).

But if it's that bad, why are GWS not being more cautious?

The fact (if it is a fact) that Sun's don't care about those picks is not a fault of the MFC, nor is them having an academy gold mine our fault, so I don't see how the situation is 'exactly what's wrong with the MFC'. I doubt we are just interested in what looks good on paper. I think we are simply in a difficult situation if we know keeping Petracca will not be good for the club. If we aren't too concerned about that, the Sun's will just have to win a cup with what they already have. I can't personally form a view because that is the critical question which we can only guess at.

Why do so many people think the decisions are made by Lamb alone? Is it just a desire to have a single sacrifical lamb?

Bad parking. Off-field issues!! Unload him to another club.

I don't know how much it was ham-fisted by us or an over-reaction by Oliver. I doubt anyone here does.