jnrmac

geez they get some soft frees

Their holding at centre bounces is a disgrace wake up umps

Shite defence Tyson

Hoges has had few stats but is leading the Kms with just over 8. Weideman second with 7.5kms Interesting.....

1st Qtr 2nd qtr

1st qtr stats

1st qtr stats

1st qtr stats

We are +15 i50s......

Hogan and Gawn unsighted GC 1 i50 goal FFS

This over HB drives me mad....

More BS frees

We are the opposite of clinical

Bullshite front on decision against Harmes.

The were later fined extensively for breaching the salary cap in that year. Another tainted flag.... In 1996, Essendon were fined a record $638,250 ($250,000 in back tax and penalties, $112,000 for draft tampering and $276,250 for breaching the salary cap regulations), forfeited their first, second and third round picks in the National Draft and were excluded from the 1997 rookie and pre-season drafts after a joint Australian Tax Office and AFL investigation found that they had committed serious and systematic breaches of the salary cap regulations totalling $514,500 between 1991 and 1996, including $110,000 in 1993 when Essendon won the premiership No sympathy at all for that rotting stinking carcass of a club.

It was something like -20 deg though....:)

Hasn't played in 9 mnths. IF we can't win without him up here we are stuffed pretty much anyway.

Just watched the Parker incident. It is almost identical to Cotchin except in a couple of respects. Cotchin clearly went past the ball and had no intention of picking the ball up - his hands never reached out for the ball and he was intent on bumping Shiel.. Parker was clearly going for the ball (his hands were reaching for the ball) and he turned his head away from Impey and his hips towards him. I would have given Cotchin a penalty and not Parker.

Nah Joe Daniher by a mile....

Just us? so you think they shd pay $1.6bn for to rights and then show it for free? Thanks Karl Marx ....

Yes but badly! Maybe the Morris' were the only two to compete in the championships for the first 30 or so years!

I think you will find that this is totally incorrect. My recollection is that they were discussing the opening of King Kong in melbourne and McGuire suggested getting Goodes down for the opening (it was several days after a 13yo girl called Goodes an Ape). Very poor undoubtedly and he deserved a carpeting. As for a 'forced apology' or as some have suggested 3 delayed and lame attempts this is what happened and what he said: McGuire immediately issued an on-air apology and later held a media conference where he publically apologised. "I'm happy to stand here in front of everybody, in front of the country, and say we do not stand for racial vilification. I let myself down because I had a slip of the tongue. When I realised what had been said, about 20 seconds later, I went and did an air check... I immediately retracted and apologised... I wasn't trying to be a smart aleck, certainly not to racially vilify anyone." "That's what was on my mind, it was just something that just came out, it was simply a slip of the tongue mistake that I didn't even realise I said at the time. As soon as I realised, I made every effort to rectify the situation. "Once I realised what had happened, I made every step possible to repair the hurt that had been done. I'm happy to face the court of public opinion." I am no apologist for McGuire but to suggest he was not immediately contrite and apologetic is wrong. I get your point about Goodes not having to accept it and I agree. I just happen to think it made him appear ungracious.

I see what you are trying to do there. 1. Not grievance culture looking for money specifically. Some yes but more a culture of people looking for things to complain about and be offended by generally. Comedians complain around the world about how they can't say many things now because people might be offended. It's actually sad. It's the thing about free speech that sometimes people will say things that offend or be untrue. If you believe in free speech you can't pick and choose. Sunlight is often said to to be the best disinfectant for disturbing speech and I happen to believe its better than someone or some committee determining what can and can't be said. In the contest of ideas and thought the best will win out. 2. It's not, to use your pithy slogan, 'victim blaming' in the least to say that people will take offence. Your comment is outrageously offensive but you have a right to say it. Someone says something to you then its your choice as to whether you take offence or not. A vegan might be offended by you eating meat. According to you this is victim blaming the vegan. Logic isn't your strong suit I see. 3. Adam Goodes was particularly ungracious and at no point have I tried to say McGuire was a victim. You have made another false and glib assertion. But its fair to ask what more McGuire could have done in the circumstances after his fulsome apology. 4. I think the #metoo outrage has a lot of validity but it's wrong to assert that I was accusing all of the people caught up in it are out for revenge. There is though a disturbing digital lynch mob mentality in some cases and in many cases retribution is being sought before evidence has been produced, tested and settled. It's people with their self-righteous and pious tone like your good self that would rather signal their outstanding virtue and pile on criticism and stifle debate because it makes them feel better about themselves. We get the picture.

I didn't originally proffer an opinion on this particular case if you read my comments.

You may well be right. It will be interesting to see if others come out and say similar things. You just reckon in today's world you would hear about it immediately if it was happening regularly.