1858

Byrnes retired as well. Currently there are 2 spots available before upgrading Jetta.

Can you elaborate a little on the specifics?

This sooking is coming from the guy who wanted to bring a live lion on the ground before games. Good to see he is switched on the with the things that will take Brisbane forward.

Heard that too.What Swan (sook) and the muppets Wallace and Barrett need to get their collective heads around is the AFL need to decide if Chip is worth band 1 not pick 3, that is the system. Swan mentioned Ablett and mid first rounder option but that only existed for GWS/GC out of contract poachings system IIRC - doesn't exist now. If Frawley is not worth pick 3 then lobby to change the system in future years but don't whinge and expect the AFL to compromise their decision of band 1 purely because the system is flawed. 2 wrongs don't make a right. Frawley clearly warrants more than band 2 - deep down these muppets know but prefer to muckrake. The system is what the system is.

Thoughts?Get it done now!

Is that Clark for Varcoe?

The tease begins. I'm waiting now for Roos to say he's 50/50 on us getting Dangerfield.

Shaun Micallef

The way this has been done is reassuring. There are never any guarantees but this was a long term plan which we didn't rush and hopefully it comes together. It just feels better than sacking a coach then having to comb the field under a tight deadline. Also I think we have our 2015 slogan sorted. "We've got the good stuff".

Stewart Dew is looking more likely for Sando's replacement. Assistant coaches next in the firing line at Crowland.

Could have been a bit more upbeat with some players in there but they went with the tactic of making it about the supporter rather than the club - probably a smart move so close to the end of a poor finishing season. In the end at least it isn't down right embarrassing (you're beautiful).

Will wait until I've reviewed the financial statements before I get a full idea of where we're at. Hopefully we've whittled down some of that debt on the acquisitions from a couple of years ago. Still, it's great news none the less. PJ is the man.

Looking pretty likely now. If he's ok by Roos he's ok by me I guess.

Yet the content is still visible for all to see. This is the perplexing aspect. A poster is given two weeks for assumably posting content that violates the guidelines of this website (and the owners of the website are fully entitled to decide those guidelines as they see fit - no problem there). This sight is modded well and I'm sure HH has "form" but there is some mixed messaging here I think. Is it the opinion itself or the expression of that opinion that is the problem? If it is the expression of that opinion then simply delete the content. If it is the opinion itself (as it appears) then it's bordering on discrimination of other people's beliefs to ban them for having one - and no I do not come close to sharing that particular opinion of religion being fair game. Saying "bad post, naughty, have 2 weeks off and come back a better poster" doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things if the offending content itself is not deleted. Is this a forum or a rehab program? This is not a criticism merely a comment.

Haven't kept on top of who is being head hunted by whom but did hear Mundy to Hawthorn is likely. How much would Hawks have to shell out for DM? Freo really into Chip as a result.

Looks like it.

Collins Street? Oh dear. I thought we were attempting to reach out to the average footy fan. If this is a long term strategy in conjunction with China Southern for mutual benefit to build Melbourne the footy club and Melbourne the destination then I can understand. Having said that how long is that going to take? Swagger and positivity are fine but we lets not get carried away here. Footy first as others have said. Is it kosha for a CEO to tell a club president to get a grip?

A day after the appeal was held and still absolutely nobody (I've heard) has once mentioned this law in its entirety with the two applicable exception clauses which, both offer lifelines of common sense to this incident. It beggars belief. So many idiots including Barrett still saying the original decision was correct in context of the rule. I bet he doesn't even know the full rule. So no, the tribunal was not even close to being correct. The tribunal believed they were towing an AFL line (that never existed in this way unbeknownst to them). If they applied the rule on its merits this mess never would have occurred. Further, I noticed this spiel at the end of the rule: "In the interests of player safety, the purpose of the rule dealing with high bumps is to reduce, as far as practicable, the risk of head injuries to players and this purpose needs to be kept firmly in mind by all players and will guide the application of the rule." In light of this, given the head is sacrosanct, why did they not take the time to consider the fact that Viney actually avoided a front on head clash by bracing? A potential sickening head clash. These muppets never explored the full rule in either application or substance.

Very well argued in context of the rules 'rpfc'. On another note, whilst it possibly could be regarded as semantics I do think the idea of a 'bump' in which these rules were written was that of the typical conscious movement ala Fyfe and Douglas. To a degree the rules account for the difference but not so adequately that common sense easily comes into play. Even though JV should get off for the reasons you mentioned I still think the rules need a tinker.

Tribunal Rhapsody by PowerForGood on BF Bay13. Is this real football? Or is this just fantasy Caught on a replay No escape from the MRP Open your eyes Look at the slow-mo and see <Viney statement> I'm just a young boy, I need no sympathy Because I sometimes bump, sometimes no A little high, little low Anywhere the ball goes, doesn't really matter to me, to me MRP, I just bumped a man Tucked my elbow in for sure Hip and shoulder, broke his jaw Mama, my season has just begun But now you want to throw it all away <MRP> Viney, ooo Didn't know what else to do You’ll need to come back again this time tomorrow Come along, come along, on tribunal matters <Lynch testimony> Too late, my jaw is broke Sends shivers down my spine Body's aching all the time Goodbye everybody - I've got to go Gotta leave you all behind to debate the truth <Viney> Mama, ooo - (anyway the ball goes) I don't want a ban I sometimes wish I'd never bumped Lynch at all <AFL prosecutor> I see a little silhouetto of a man Scaramouch**, scaramouch why’d you do the big-bumpo Thunderbolt and lightning - very very frightening indeed <high> Think of the children, <low> Think of the children, <high> Think of the children, <low> Think of the children, Won’t somebody think of the children – You Have To Go-o-o—o-o <Viney> But I'm just a Viney and everybody loves me <Defence lawyer> He's just a young boy from a footy family Spare him his season from this monstrosity Easy bump, easy no - will you let me go Tribunal! No - we will not let you go - <Bay 13> Let Him Go! Tribunal! We will not let you go - <Bay 13> Let Him Go! Tribunal! We will not let you go - <Bay 13> Let Him Go! Will not let you go - <Viney> let me go (never) Never let you go - <Viney> let me go Never let me go – ooo No, no, no, no, no, no, no <Viney> Oh Roosy dear, Roosy dear, why won’t they let me go What appeal process have the Demons put aside for me for me for me <turns towards tribunal> So you think you can suspend me, look me in the eye So you think you can judge me, it’s all just a lie Oh Gillon - can't do this to me Gillon Just gotta get out - just gotta get right outta here <Viney storms out> <Gerard Whateley ending> Ooh yeah, ooh yeah Nothing really matters Anyone can see Nothing really matters – The game of Aussie Rules is lost…… to me Anyway the ball goes...

Not only is he a [censored] in general but he seems to be contradicting himself more and more as time goes on.

Agreed. This is the problem with AD's comment though. He inferred JV was unlucky because of the rule. He is actually muddying this. He's not helping at all like some think. The rule did not deem that JV "elected to bump", the tribunal did. AD essentially giving the tribunal an alibi here.

The exact thing Viney took measures to avoid i.e. a clash of heads. If Viney continues at same speed and attempts a front on tackle we potentially have 2 players going off on stretchers. Why the tribunal don't want to consider this notion is mind boggling if the AFL is indeed worried about the rough image of the game.Getting out of the way was not an option.

Had to put up with the same thing. They were a joke. Whilst I would have preferred we kept scoring like in the first half, to win by less than a kick was satisfying just to hear them vent.

Absolutely, but his execution of that has been quite good IMO.