sue

I really don't know what you guys expect. Of course there will be these 'puff' pieces. What would you write if you were in the PR department? If they upset you so much, just don't read them. You know what they will say, so save yourselves the grief and don't look.

They were pretty solid in my day (cue violins....)

If true, does that increase/decrease odds of Yze coming to Dees?

Call me a cynic, but I'm inclined to believe the AFL has shown how tough it is by handing out the 1 week knowing he can have a no risk appeal and will then get off. History would indicate I'm right, but you never know I guess.

Well if GWS beat C'wood that will be the end of any concessions the AFL give them in future. Eddie won't stand for it.

Agree with you there. But just because it 'has always been part of the game" does not justify actions which have nothing to do with the game. If I wanted to watch boxing or karate, I wouldn't go to the footy.

First line correct - but they do it all the time. Second line: why he is on the field is irrelevant. AFL must be the only code where the players, officials and commentators have never bothered to read the rules. The commentators' discussion about what's acceptable is a laugh. Here's a simple way to avoid it. Any contact which is deliberate and does not involve trying to get the ball, tackling, shepherding etc should be prohibited contact whether players are injured or not. Would cut out stupid niggling which has nothing to do with footy skills.

1 week. Doubtless will win no-risk appeal. Staged.

good grief. Give it a rest.

OK. Could someone who believes that the coach should say something that isn't cliches and corporate-speak please draft the sort of speech they believe is appropriate for us all to read. I'll be pleasantly surprised if anyone can do it.

Just looked at the AFL website. Talk about burying the news.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/sep/07/afl-colours-clash-leaves-collingwood-geelong-fans-fuming Of course all this would go away if they both wore entirely different clash jumpers.

I wonder what fraction were Dog supporters. Looked high to me.

But the orange seats help

Yes, hard to watch.

Essendrug is not childish or tedious if you speak the odd word of German.

How do you know he hasn't?

Well I wasn't aware that WCE were shielded - I don't live in WA and journos elsewhere didn't bring it to my attention. I'm not sure which is worse - a cover up of possible offences or excuses (and worse) made for the proven guilty. Actually I do in terms of the effect on me - Essendon was particularly grating, especially after we got pilloried for tanking when lots of others had tanked, some more blatantly. Essendon didn't need to try to make that 'defence' before journos were falling over themselves to protect and bolster them!

Care factor is more than zero for me. While WCE may have been guilty, at least it wasn't proved by ASADA and then lamely excused by large sections of the media like Essendrug was. So I'm hoping for a WCE big win.

Fair cop. By way of mitigation, I couldn't microwave my membership card in '65 since they didn't exist then.

Same for me (though closer to 65 years). And before someone blames my complacency as a supporter for our lack of flags since '64, I might point out that in all those years I have neither played, coached or administered the club. And I have no expertise to affect any of that. What I do or feel has no effect, and nor do I expect it to.

But at least he said "I think" rather than just assuming that anything the club does must ipso facto be wrong like you seem to do. And what is wrong with him not knowing '10 days in'? That's just a mindless putdown. If the Club revealed all their plans you'd complain that they aren't professional. You are so negative that anything but disapproval of everything the club does allows you to label other posters as plodders or bootlickers. Insulting people doesn't improve your arguments. You will convince people of your views more if you are politer. No, I am not doing this in school time.

Please put me on ignore too.

Thanks to those pro-mission statement posters who have posted why they think they are useful. But I don't think you have answered or even addressed my very simple questions in post #30, viz: Let me make a start. Perhaps a new small insurance company might want to emphasise different values etc than an established big one. However I'd see this as tinkering around the edges of what every insurance company might see as its mission. But OK, I'll concede it might be useful to emphasise the points where that company departs from the 'standard' mission of insurance companies. But when it comes to football I just don't see why they'd be any difference between clubs regardless of ladder position/development phase. There might be different plans for addressing the next few years, but why would the club "mission statement" be any different from any other club in any truly meaningful way?

Likely - dogs don't have fingers. Have you ever tried to type using a paw? That's why there are lots of typos (not spelling mistakes as someone grumbled rather rudely).