sue

Yes he said all that. But he specifically talked about a winnable game and a basket-case MFC kicking its highest ever score. If I was the interviewer I would have asked him "Are you saying GWS tanked?" Of course he'd probably dodge that.

Early in the clip, did I hear Eddie imply GWS tanked on Sunday? Sounded like it to me,

I drew the attention of the forum to DM's speech because no one seemed to have noticed it, it was interesting and, yes, I did so partly to 'pick a fight' because I'm sick of the negativity of many posters. I expected his comments wouldn't go down with some and I was interested to see how he might be defended. I guess it was a mistake because goading the negative brigade to more was counter-productive given I am sick of the negativity. For that I apologise. I don't see much point in posting 'whoopee' when we win, nor do I post grumbles or calls for mass sackings/delistings when we lose. I don't post much about the actual footy because I'm stuck interstate and only see matches on TV where the overuse of close-ups makes it very difficult to know what is really happening. But of course I was very happy on Sunday. (Though I saw a couple of our negative posters who regretted the win because that lost the chance to sack the coach.) Interestingly (to me at least) I think I was more excited during the first half against WCE than thumping GWS, though that was desperately needed.

On your first sentence: Could mean anything. Most likely being quiet was part of the deal with the AFL. On the rest: Perhaps. But you have changed the subject. Your original statement was to complain that the Board rolled over to the AFL. I said they may have had good reasons to do so, not that the tanking policy was correct. RR: I agree with you quite often. Being a belligerent bugger, I usually only post when I disagree with people.

I really have no opinion on how good or bad the current Board is, but the above is a typical example of what I am on about when I say we often don't know all the facts so it is difficult to make a judgement. What if the AFL tanking investigation uncovered absolutely damming evidence, maybe even against Jim? In that case rolling over for a fine which perhaps the AFL will pay itself may have been a good decision leaving aside the difficulties and expense of court cases. I didn't get to see the AFL evidence. Did anyone posting here see it?

Don't underestimate GWS. They may have more wins this year than some expect.

The real 'cheap seats' are the corporate and media boxes. The rest of us pay.

Yeah, absolutely love the guy - that's why my last post included the words 'Seriously, the man may have made a lot of mistakes and deserved to go for all sorts of reasons'.

I don't think that people will be basing their comments on GWS's performance on their newness to the comp pretty soon. So more than happy to be able to beat them when they were looking for a scalp and had nothing to lose.

Seriously, the man may have made a lot of mistakes and deserved to go for all sorts of reasons, but if you really think a successful business man like him would mean something so stupid as putting down 'poor' members, then I think your opposition is clouding your judgement. (His earlier comment about not wanting fair-weather supporters may have been a mistake and maybe not, but it is not on the scale of the insulting interpretation of the 'cheap seats' remark. I don't now exactly what DM meant by 'cheap seats', but if he meant people who will always look for the worst interpretation, then a few posters here may have identified themselves as occupants of those seats.

So the facts on tanking were clear were they? Obviously your copy arrived, but my copy of the AFL Report and the MFC Response got lost in the mail.

But the interpretation that umpires seem to regularly make is that it isn't play-on, no matter how obvious, until the ump shouts play-on. Often happens as players go well off-line after a mark and the guy on the mark goes to attack him and is pinged 50m. So I thought that was the actual rule. Are you guys saying that is not the case, there is some discretion without having called play-on? (yes, I think he clearly played on and also clearly got grabbed around the neck as well. And broke free of that and was storming in.)

that's what I love about this forum. I wasn't taking a cheap shot. It was a genuine question, hoping i might trigger the idea. Oh well.

Yep, I do have a problem with making judgements based on partial facts, rumour, innuendo and 'opinion' pieces by journos whose main interest is in big-noting themselves. Some of us are bitter by years of failure and so are happy to put the boot at the drop of a hat and on every issue. Perhaps understandable, but as I think Redleg has said, I wouldn't want some of you guys to be on my jury if I was innocent.

Any room in your multimillion $ company to sponsor the club?

Here's an idea for another poll: Do you agree with those posters who expressed some disappointment in the Game Day thread that we had an all-time record last quarter because by winning we lost an opportunity to get rid of the coach. They are of course welcome to their deep strategic thinking, but .....

why don't you read the context before replying. I was responding to mjt saying I'd back the board during the TANKING issue. Your response appears to relate to the drug issues.

On the contrary, given the circumstances, unless he was telling the truth it would be very stupid in the circumstances to say anything on the topic. Just hide behind the no comment because investigations are underway,

I'm not sure at what point I started backing them? Was it when they decided to 'tank'? Don't recall commenting on that. Maybe it was in the middle when I took a fairly neutral position since we didn't know all the facts? Or was it at the end when I thought they did reasonably well in the circumstances. I too would LIKE the club not to be under investigation. Just not convinced that all the sh!t is purely due to the Board nor that problems will be solved by the alternative fantasy board that doesn't exist.

'it is the topic' to you because you are obsessed with it. But it isn't the topic in this particular thread. BTW, I don't have any special love of the current Board or McLardy. I just think they are often unfairly bagged by some who blast them when the known facts on their latest failing could be counted on the fingers of a mutilated hand. Anyway I suspect DM didn't really want the job in the first place but has been doing it for the club.

Maybe not, but that isn't the topic. You can't miss an opportunity to remind us you don't like the Board.

Since we may have a few days with more footy discussion and less wrist-slitting, I'd appreciate some comments from wiser heads on the play-on rule. When Evans played-on today he rightly got a 50m penalty for being tackled before the umpire called play-on. On the other hand he clearly did play on and it seems unfair to penalise the tackler. This happens fairly often, or players unfairly (in my view) take advantage of improving their position while their opponent doesn't dare move. It seems to me the rule would make much more sense if it were applied by the umpire retrospectively - let the player decide if his opponent has played on and only pay a 50m if in the umpires opinion he hasn't played-on. What are the arguments against doing it that way around? What would go wrong? Would that be worse than what happens now?

A lot of Demonlanders sit on them.

OK all you snipers out there, now you can call our President 'soft' for whinging. Support leaders too: McLardy Or perhaps he is merely correct. Why would a successful business person want to take on a Board position in such a volatile area where problems can suddenly come from left field and there are vulture journos circling everywhere - not to mention some supporters. You could hear the Chanel 7 commentators salivating about their likely copy for the week at 3Q time today.

No doubt.