sue

Despite all the emotion being expressed about MFC not taking a hard enough line, can anyone who is not hot under the collar tell me what they can do other than force him into a draft for which we get nothing (except perhaps worse relations with our players). If that is true, no amount of voluminous balls will make the slightest difference.

Amusing to reflect on how much positivity is expressed when we nominate 18 year-old "Johnny Hasn't-Played-an-AFL-game" as an early pick in the lottery of the draft, yet how much negativity is being expressed about this bloke. Let's wait and see.

On the WADA issue, I'm presuming the AFL have told clubs of a policy to ameliorate the risk of trading with EFC. I don't think they have any corporate governance reason to make it public, though perhaps it is surprising there have been no leaks. Still there will be some risk, and whether it is ameliorated by that, clauses in contracts or whatever, or the likely length of a ban, I think we have to trust that the club has its head around all that better than us - we are not privy to the facts.

never saw a game more in need of clash jumpers

I've avoided this thread until now, but I found some of the posts criticising him pretty odd, especially the ones which point to some mistake he made as proof he wasn't up to it. The ball has come into the MFC backline so often and under so little pressure in recent years that if Jesus was in the backline there would be a lengthy video album of mistakes he made. Sure Garland may not be a perfect player but I can't see who would replace him in the near future. Glad he re-signed.

Bad example. As much as we love Jones, and especially 5 years ago, he is not a 'big fish'. By definition your 90% of players are not 'big fish', so them not changing clubs is not relevant to the equalization issue.

Your first sentence just emphasises why those players will go to top clubs and why those clubs will pay for them. Your second is confusing - if many players changed clubs each year it would not be 'picking the eyes'. So I don't understand your point. Perhaps I have confused you by implying that these players were rendered blind and thus somewhat hampered marking the ball......

So many posters are so keen on self-flaggelation that they miss the point. Sure we have been hopeless, but are the other non-top teams also hopeless? Clearly if top clubs can keep picking the eyes out of players developed at lowly clubs, equalization will not occur, even if occasionally a team likes ours appears to do well in the trade. Will we still be smiling about getting Brayshaw for Frawley when Brayshaw is poached by a top club in a few years and we have to replace him with another draft gamble?

There is an implication that some people may actually pay for these tickets?!?? Restore my faith in humanity and tell me it's not true.

Often it is just the first quarter.

The remark about the team being in Bali was either a dig or just the sort of comment someone with limited neurons would make without intending the jibe. Take your pick. While I enjoy feeling bitter, I would have overcome my natural tendencies if he looked like he was trying last year. I don't buy the argument that he was trying but was being played out of position. That may have affected performance but not endeavour. So I balance that against natural sympathy I have for anyone facing the blizzard of balls coming into the Demon's defence in recent years and simply state - I don't give a stuff about him personally. I hope he stuffs up in the GF merely because it is another way Hawthorn might lose. But I do not like top clubs picking the eyes out of weak clubs despite the fact that we appear to have landed a good player as a result in this case. That will always be hit and miss - poaching an established player is close to risk-free.

There are so many ways of hiding extra non-payments that the AFL would need to an integrity unit to provide oversight.

Did that handful include the game against Richmond?

This discussion is going around in circles. Clearly those who say he is worth keeping because we can't get much for him in any trade/pick, don't think he is a 100% proven dud. They may be right, they may be wrong, but no one seems to add anything new to the argument.

It is sad how any demonlanders have acted as if there were zero other clubs who would have made the same drafting decision, not 17.

That is very understanding of you, but we won't have the benefit of a Toby who has matured with age - we will get what he is now.

He's contracted, Howe isn't. I'd love to have the contract to supply tea to Demonland. The reading of tea leaves here is so popular.

That should be appended to every Demonland post.

BB, of course he was convenient. Doesn't lessen his achievements or his getting the award. I'm being the reverse of naive. If you were on the Oz of the Year selection committee I expect you'd chose a candidate who are already known in the community rather than someone who has done similar things but is unknown to the public. That's the sort of things these Committees take into account to maximise the perception of their awards, rather than having it buried on page 33.

well you won't find one. I expect he was just listing his ideal recipients. Goodes' citation does include his AFL career (like other sports players who have had the award), but it does also focus on his work for the indigenous community: http://www.australianoftheyear.org.au/honour-roll/?view=fullView&year=2014&recipientID=1144 Did his being a famous sports star increase his chances of nomination? Yes of course - have a look at the full list going back to 1960 and you'll see he is not alone in that. But in recent times that is not sufficient to get the gong. BB: I suppose you think Mick Dodson must also have been an AFL star to get his gong in 2009.....

I'm happy if people think Frawley played well regardless of the facts. So far most of the guys we have traded out have been pretty useless. Last thing we want is for oppo clubs to think that trading for an ex-MFC player is a mistake. Go Frawley!

David King has written the equivalent of a "DOG BITES MAN" article. ZZZZZZZZ

Brilliant. Would work wonders for the club in a game when things started to go wrong. Can't imagine anything better than having a player [censored] off by that insult wondering why he is bothering during a match when extra commitment suddenly becomes required. Offer him what he's worth and leave it at that.

Why would others rate him higher? What can't they see what the MFC can? It would have to be some internal issue which would be unknown to demonlanders, but there has been no hint of that.

What a choice. But I just saw Scott demanding an apology and the die is cast.