sue

Thanks - finally some actual evidence from someone who would know about his preferences.

No I'm not. I don't have any personal feelings about this to make me scratching for evidence that he won't go. I just ask where is the evidence that "it is widely known"? And I maintain his answer to the question is ambiguous and taken with other statements he has made about being happy on the back line, we have no real evidence of his intentions. I presume you are not putting any weight on jokes about Brownlows.

But who knows what he means. It could mean some other club chasing him wants him to play in the mid-field but he does not want to, so may reject them even if they offer more $. We don't know. I still haven't seen any evidence of "It is well known that he wants to play more in the midfield". He may, but jokes about Brownlows may be just that: a joke.

please provide exact quote or link.

What is the evidence that he wants to play inside mid?

Not impossible that all those things have been ticked off and there could be a simultaneous announcement on a podcast and elsewhere.

I know nothing but why is it assumed that Gus' remark about factoring in where on the field he is expected to play automatically means he is hankering for mid-field. After all these years, is it not possible that other clubs want him to play there and he doesn't want to now?

I gather from recent posts thanking D11 that he/she has a record of providing good inside information. Unfortunately such well informed posts are drowned in posts from people who know nothing yet post just as confidently and pretend inside knowledge. For those of us ignorant (like me), I'd love to see a list of names of posters who have an established record of having inside information.

Ok Sorry I didn’t see you had retracted “official” but a mild criticism of one word is enough to make you reconsider how much info you pass on? Surely not.

No need to be so narky D11. There have been lots of posts saying he is gone where the poster implies they have inside knowledge or use the word official loosely. It's unreasonable to say 'officially' until it is announced by the club or player. And it is reasonable to ask anyone posting the basis for their statement. If by 'offically' you mean you have a reliable inside source that tells you it has happened, you should simply say so.

That is an interesting idea. The trouble with 'can't play the next game' idea is that it could endanger players. For example, coaches might be encouraged to keep a player on the ground with a minor injury (which would be OK in a week), but after playing-on the injury might get much worse. I guess you could argue if the coach wants to take the risk with injuring his players, so be it .

Ha. If we started exploiting the sub after loads of other clubs have been doing it, the AFL would nail us. Tanking deja vu.

Didn’t the AFL say just this week head butting was not on AND running your head into a stationary player was not a free for high contact.

I have no doubt he is trying his best. Even the anti-Weid brigade on here don't seem to be making personal attacks on him, just on his inability to play as well as we'd hope and need. So I don't see why anyone should 'back off'. The criticism may be repetitive, but that's a natural consequence of him being in and out of the team. Just ignore it if it bugs you LH.

Pity about Brown. He was showing signs of regaining form. In Weid we trust. (gulp)

Of course 800 managers is impossible. And everything you say is true. But I still see the potential for conflicts of interest (without blurting). So in the absence of 800 managers, any professional body should have a code of ethics to manage that and minimise such conflicts. I doubt player managers do (but of course I don't know). edit to add: Since managers presumably get a percentage of the players income, there is a conflict right there if they are representing 2 players in a Brayshaw/Jackson situtation. Unless of course they have no incentive in maximising their own income..... They might push Jackson to accept less from Freo (without saying why) to enable Brashaw to get more out of MFC. No reason to assume this would be financially neutral for the manager. (For the purposes of saving DLand from litigation :)> I am not suggesting any naughty behaviour by their particular manager, just using those familiar names to make the general point.)

I don't think it can be that simple Redleg. Do they have ethical standards preventing them revealing to player A what may be a confidential matter about player B without clearing it with B first? And what if he doesn't know Jacko is leaving (say) and that he;s probably staying? Does he tell Gus to ask for more money elsewhere - that leaking out may negatively affect Jacko's negotiations. They really need independent managers in such cases.

Player managers must sometimes drown in conflicts of interest. I wonder if they have any code of ethics to cover cases like the Brayshaw/Jackson one. (rhetorical wondering I fear) It's not just a simple case of doing their best for each player independently.

I'm not a close wtacher of Grundy's form, but I have the impression he has gone downhill rapidly. Why would we want him unless the cause of his falloff can be established (eg. injury) and that it can be corrected quickly. But that seems unlikely.

Just the usual complete [censored] from the AFL

Feels like they have been already.

They've fixed one of the errors. One more to go....

Only explanation is that rather than taking a selfish set shot, he was trying to pass it to a team mate. Who unfortunately wasn't where he expected.

Yes it seemed like that to me. But maybe he was just luring his opponent into a false sense of security.

But did he say which contract?