sue

And I suppose you great grandfather blamed Spain for the Spanish flu and expected Spainiards to live in poverty forever. (Actually the Spainsh flu is a slander on Spain since news of it was supressed in the UK USA and Germany because of wartime censorship in WWI - didn't want to affect morale in that pointless war. Spain wasn't involved and freely published info about it so they got stuck with the name.)

I thought the thread title was rhetorical.

While it is click bait etc, it is true that as of now you'd have to say they would be favourites to beat us. The AFL hasn't done us any favours in kicking off the season this way even if the rest of the draw looks good.

I thought having double (or more) meanings was a common trick for attracting attention in titles. Is the Redemption achieved or are we working on it?

Isn't Redemption as 'bad' as Back? But Grimes-Times' post shows that there are other ways of interpreting the title without even bending the dictionary defintion. I wonder how you'd be feeling as a Port supporter? More than a storm in a tea cup there I guess.

True. Anyway the title is spot on if you interpret it correctly: To Hell =1964. (after all where else are Demons happy but in hell?) And Back = the years since then, not in hell. When we win the flag it will be To Hell and Back to Hell at Last.

Since repeating oneself seems to be acceptable in this thread, I'll repeat that I don't think the ? is necessary. It depends on the content of the doco. As you say, no questioning the 'hell' bit, but if the doco focuses on what we are doing to try to get back, it is appropriate, though maybe "to Hell and the Road Back" would be better. There is no reason on the face of it to assume the title is an empty boast and that no other interpretation is possible. I'd agree with SWYL et al if the title was "To Hell and Back to Heaven" or used Milton's two titles, but it didn't. Anyway, a storm in a tea cup.

You don't want to read too much into the title until you see the doco. What if the doco takes the line we have been in hell and presents the 'back' bit as a struggle /process / aim but not something accompished? It is unusual to review a doco without having seen it. And what was that saying about books and covers and judging?

I'd have thought that players from Vic would be happier to play in Tassie than in WA or especially QLD.

I know it goes against modern trends and the current AFL ethos, but I'd rather they subsidise a team in Tassie where people are footy mad (and deserve a team) than try to build a second team in states where no one gives a damn.

I found it hard enough re-watching the ones we won.

Where's that picture of a storm in a tea cup? Needed here IMO.

Well at least umps will be pressured to recall bad bounces more often so we get an extra look at the logo. (Just watched the v Freo match Rd14 I think and they didn't care how bad the bounce was multiple times.)

They are on the website but in an obscure spot. Actually joining the club is a bit hidden too (why?!) - under the hamburger at the top right. Then you have to pretend you want to join and up comes the membership number which I presume is vaguely up to date.

The problem with the argument that 'facilties are better today' is that it neglects the general progress of society. So I dismiss that. But it would be interesting to know about the proportion of wages now and then. But I can put it in terms of pocket money.... I'd have needed 5 weeks saving 100% of it in 1960 to buy an annual membership. Do 9 year old kids today get 75/5=$15 a week? Maybe they do?

Yes, and we did in the 1960's too.

Others may have better data, but I think I had a junior membership in the 1960's for $1 though my memory isn't great. With the multitude of packages these days it's a bit unclear, but I think that is the same as a $71 junior membership now. Using the well-known dim-sim inflation index, I reckon that the cost is about double now*. Having paid a fortune for 5 to attend last year's QB match, I reckon it's worse for adults, but I don't have the figures. * This site would say that the value of a $1 in 1960 is $15 now whereas I assumed about $30-40. That would imply it costs 6 times as much now. Of course there are other factors over such a long period of change. https://www.in2013dollars.com/australia/inflation/1960?amount=1 (I agree that food and beverage is avoidable.)

Maybe, but surely he will only become interested in footy by the footy itself, not by some videos concerning players etc., however cool. I'm an old fogie, but I reckon going to the footy and playing it when young is what makes a footy fan. Pity the cost of going to the footy is now so huge in these modern professional commercial days.

He is playing for Southern District Crocs (what a name) in the NTFL. I accidentally saw the last quarter of a game on SBS's NITV last week and there he was vs the Wanderers I think. His team won by a lot but did not score a single point in the last quarter so didn't see much of him.

Well I'd be a bit calmer if it wasn't for the fact that the person who broke the news well in advance of anyone Docs Demon reported Gawn in "a fair bit of pain. Contact could hear him yelling." I'm not sure if it is better if he was screaming in pain or frustration.

I see where you are coming from but a team can truly overachieve if it encounters an unusual amount of good luck, eg. injuries to key opponent players during or before when they play the team and this happening way more often than 'average'. If everything is within normal bounds, then maybe you are right - it is impossible to overchieve. Spliting hairs.... but there is no football.

Agree, but what did you mean by 'Convenient wedding'? Odd. Players get maried to hide their injury from Demonland?

True, but I don't think it's a good idea in the particular case of Bennell. Too much risk that our regular doomsayers may turn out to be right and he never plays again. Better to do this with players who do not have such an injury cloud over them. In any case you have to be careful to chose players who will react well to the extra publicity.

I feel that it's a bit like buying a ticket in a lottery. The odds are small but the benefits if you win are enormous. Of course if the odds were as bad as tattslotto I'd be with you, but they are clearly much higher in this case and IMO worth a punt (so far).

WHo could disagree with that. But presumably the assumption behind hardtack's post is that there is a non-negligible chance that he will play.