sue

Probably not. But I think they fear the big clubs. After all, if you were trying to establish a mechanism to build a competitive GWS while evening up the comp (surely a desirable aim for the AFL), wouldn't you come up with a scheme where say, the top x clubs for the last 2 or so years have to lose 1 player each to GWS (or something along those lines) rather than the system they chose?

Possibly. But has there ever been a situation quite like this? Anyway, remember the MFC said they tossed a coin as to whether Trengove or Scully would be the #1 pick. So come on all you doomsayers, instead of endlessly saying how weak our club is, what about saying we kept a #1 pick in Trengove despite the megabucks being tossed around by the AFL's desperation to expand into Sydney at all costs (at least costs to smaller Vic clubs). edit to add: But I wouldn't be mentioning that when looking for compensation!

We don't have to wait for the outcome. Regardless of the outcome, the fact that losing a #1 pick so soon is even a possibility condemns the AFL bosses.

Oh dear, this is turning into another dark Scully thread rather than just ignoring my light-hearted suggestion that a table of who said what would be worth a read once the decision was announced. Of course the board is for opinion. But if someone gives opinions on what might happen in the future and they generally turn out to be true, then it increases my confidence they are right when they next make a prediction. More extremely, if someone claims to have inside info that A will happen and B happens instead, I'm very unlikely to believe them in future. (To avoid flames, I'm not suggesting the poster above has claimed to have inside info.) My original posting was meant to be a bit light-hearted. I find myself rudely accused of being lazy by another poster and now this. AAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!

I felt this didn't belong in the Scully thread, since it is about posters and not Scully, so I hope I don't get shot for posting this slightly tongue-in-cheek request: With THE announcement looming could someone with a lot of time on their hands please make up a table listing the names of those who have been adamant that Scully is going, those of the above who say say so based on some inside info they have those adamant he is staying those who have posted 'don't know' statements. This will help me evaluate whom to believe when we go through all this next year....

Alternatively and unusually for a poster on this site, you could take a more positive view, based on what awesome skills Geelong have: Geelong made the Demons looks like witches hats when they buried us but at least our witches hats had clearly given up trying. The Pies tried and still got done. Maybe we'll be better when we don't lose heart so easily.

You'd think it would be wise to add an outsider with relevant experience.

Haven't thought this idea through, but what about reversing things to stop tanking while giving weak clubs a boost: The higher a club finishes in the finals, the more of its players can be poached by the clubs who finish say from 10th to wooden spoon (with no advantage for being bottom). No team will tank in the finals to preserve a player or 2 for the next year. A club is unlikely to tank to just miss out on a finals berth. Problems: No top club will agree. Perhaps they will/can tie everyone up with contracts? Really weak clubs get same advantage as mid-range clubs. Doubtless there are other reasons why the idea is a complete lemon....

agree 100%

looked to me like he had trouble jumping - seems unlikely he was dropped for any reason bar foot.

I'm confused. Are you saying they told the board during the week that they would throw the game in protest? Surely not, so what are you saying?

just watched it. Totally agree. Green did a reasonable job. Going by some of the early reports on here , I'd have thought I was watching the wrong video.

Some of the negative remarks made in this thread amaze me. People turning off after the first 10 minutes for example. Yes it was deplorable, but we then kicked 3 quick goals in a row jus afterwards. We hung in there for a long time - admittedly it always looked like we'd fall away, but we didn't throw in the towel. I don't recall the TV commentators mentioning the usual effects of post-Darwin games, but maybe the odd Demons supporter might. Clearly we lack the skills and the bodies - but who thought otherwise before the first whistle went? So why be so depressed when the inevitable happens and the miracle didn't.

Re the 50m penalty awarded against Martin(?): Could someone who knows the rules explain. (I rule out most commentators). When a free kick is awarded for an off-ball infringement 50 metres up the ground from where a player has the ball, who is he supposed to give it to? I would have though the umpire was a good bet, but apparently I'm wrong. Do you have to return it to the player on the full with a perfect 50m pass?

Glad to hear you know more than me. I presume you mean in general and not about the specific points I raised or you might have answered them. Why do you keep going on about"'we can't discuss it"? What do you think all your posts and responses are then? Yes, the question was legitimate and was answered to my satisfaction (if not yours) by the facts stated. Give it a rest.

I'm amazed at how anyone could be so sure that 'he should have been there'. Obviously you have more facts available than I do, eg. how many metres between the cool room and the room where TS was being treated? Was it possible to interrupt the treatment underway and get there in time? Would the docs know when the siren was going to sound to get him off the table on on the way to the cool room in time? I'd want top know all that before I even thought of saying 'should have been there'. And as for taking the next step to draw conclusions about implications for contract signing - just amazed anyone would do it.

Probably as in other businesses, not directly but by being in the cosy Director-CEO club environment. Exec salaries have grown enormously over recent years - the ratio of CEO to low-paid workers wages used to be a factor of 10, now it is 100. This is never justified except by 'we need to pay this to retain the best'. But what were the best doing 20 years ago? Working hard for their 'miserable low' pay and being retained. Shifting the 'blame' to directors in business is a joke. These guys are all mates in the same circles. You'd hand out free beer if you knew free beer would be returned. But I can't understand why this would apply to AFL directors. Are they in the cosy Directorial-CEO club that abounds in business? What's the background of the AFL Directors?

But have you ever seen anyone else leap over a player to apply a tackle so far from where he left the ground?

So, we have lots of inside sources at Melbourne leaking the information that he is gone. If this was true and writ in blood and unchangeable, surely they'd have him playing at Casey. What would there be to lose - a non-finals win or two at most? Doesn't the fact that he is not at Casey imply either the sources are wrong, playing games, or there is hope he will stay within the higher levels of the club who presumably are more in the know than anyone? Please explain.

I hope people saying things like the above aren't accusing our Admin in particular and are not engaged in the all too common MFC bashing. (Not accusing RR here, just many posters seems to think they would do better than our people close to the action.) As an earlier post pointed out, the arrangement the clubs (not just us!) agreed to is worse for clubs who have put several years into developing a top player only to find him snatched away. Are all the CEO's blind to these flashing lights, or did they have no choice?

As stated elsewhere Llyod spent the whole match making excuse (unneeded) for Collingwood and didn't mention our outs or the fact that so many of or players had played only a small handful of games. I think he hasn't recovered form us beating his club last week and cam'r keep his bias out of his supposedly neutral commentary. Of course not only is that unprofessional, but the worse we are, surely putting us down imply Essendon is even worse.

Gasp. Modern morals have reached a new low when lying just because you can within some 'system' is considered acceptable by anyone. Now if he was trying nobly to 'show up a (corrupt) system', (corrupt as it is) it might be acceptable, but he wasn't. He was simply trying to get off. Very sad.

Who cheated more? No contest. In one case in the heat of the contest a player kicks an opponent's hand while the hand was in contact with the ball and thinks he kicked the ball directly. Makes the usual actions a player does when they kick a goal but subsides the moment the ump indicates touched. In the other, a ridiculous story is concocted in the days after the event which was either a lie or the biggest case of self-deception I've seen. I can understand a player deceiving himself, but how could their Admin self-deceive? I'm sure they wouldn't have chanced it if there was a possibility of an extra week penalty for challenging. Stones and glass houses come to mind. Will anyone in the media dare make a comment?

Be careful. Collingwood players will be fired up to prove they can win without some of their stars. Of course if we win, it will be because of their outs. If we lose excrement will be lowered onto us given the circumstances. Hmmm, a lose lose situation.....

Yes. I hope his coach doesn't think he was cheating by making such a patently absurd claim.