Adam The God

Nah, Smith is over the line. That's already been confirmed on Demonland. If we are still in fact pursuing Polec, I'd say we want Smith off half back and Polec on the opposite wing to Langdon.

Well, you're wrong.

Lol. Should we start a thread on Dean Kent's BnF finish too?

Agreed.

If so, we obviously don't think we can get the Phillips deal done, or we prefer Polec as a player. Probably fair enough too.

If we rate a player high enough it doesn't really matter that it's compromised, providing we think we can land them at our pick. Let's say for argument's sake that Taylor rated Macrae's talent on par with an 18 year old Clayton Oliver, you'd do whatever you could to get your hands on him. I would anyway.

This is why I think, if possible, we should try and bring him in. Keep spreading the profile of our elite mids and with Taylor behind our recruiting, I'd love to give him another first rounder to use on a mid. Who knows what next year brings. I'd be trading next year's first rounder to get in this year if we think we can land the player we want.

That's the one.

No, I wasn't happy, but there is grey, you know, OD. I wouldn't be getting the entire board to step down because we finished 9th. That's knee-jerk ridiculousness.

Me too, gotta watch out for the estrogen though.

There we go. Fixed it.

Yeah, I'm happy enough with the addition of Smith and I'd like Phillips too. Otherwise, I'm happy with Salem playing off half back.

Tmac's on the table = IPA ?? brilliant.

Well, it's Murdoch too. Sir Keith started the IPA. And I'd argue it is political. The majority of the Government are IPA members, along with Bolt, that rock spider and that traitor trying to broker a better trade deal for his country of birth over the country he lead and still derives a pension from.

Brown and Smith will come quite cheaply. If Nev goes, there might be a way of landing Phillips and sending him to the wing and Smith to half back. Otherwise, if we can get back into the first round (via the Preuss deal), the kid Taylor likes can play off half back. I think we need to find a home for Tom. Hannan will get to the Dogs relatively cheaply I would imagine and Oscar may well end up at the same club as his brother again. Unless a really good deal comes up, I can't see us trading Brayshaw or Harmes.

It's pretty clear that the club was happy to see him leave and he won't be coming back.

We don't need to trade Harmes to bring in these players. So I'd be playing at half forward.

Sparrow is bog ordinary, otherwise I agree. I'd be keeping Harmes before Sparrow, but clearly Goodwin loves Sparrow. Have no idea why.

Wish we got the same deals he did in 1975. Daddy's equity and crumbling NYC essentially paying him to take on abandoned buildings and refurbish them. HyperNormalisation explores this brilliantly.

I never rated him when he was in the big time, but each to their own.

This is the classic neoliberal model for privatisation. The same thing is happening at the ABC. Strip funding until things are so useless that people say we may as well privatise them.ĺ We get worse consumer prices and worse service, with offshoring of local jobs as a triple whammy with privatisation. Australia Post is effectively semi-privatised already. The stores are franchised and run as private businesses. I hate dealing with them. They're hopeless. The privatisation of Telstra has been a disaster. Our public money paid for the infrastructure and it was handed to Murdoch to make money, except service plummeted and I don't know a single person on either side of the aisle that thinks Telstra is a remotely competent organisation. The privatisation of QANTAS by Keating has seen 25,000 people laid off because their CEO takes home multi million dollar pay cheques and without adequate competition, it's not a market, it's a monopoly. Consumers have no lever on price stability. You can't expect better service when there's the profit motive, because in the inevitable economic downturn, private firms need to cut costs, which impacts on service and price stability. Sure, we need a mixed economy, but some sectors should be in government hands and the only reason they're not is due to the failed macroeconomics of the current major parties. The Government is not financially constrained, it's resource constrained. Government deficits create private wealth and fiscal surpluses strangle private wealth. It's why household savings dipped into recession during Costello's 10 surpluses in 11 years and the mining sector was in recession by 2007, because its debt burden was too great. Menzies knew the power of fiscal deficits and it's why he championed massive fiscal deficits that allowed the private sector to save. This is no longer the goal, but maybe that's changing. That's the only way we're going to stop a financial collapse. Thus ends the lecture for today.

You're referring to neoliberalism and money manager capitalism, very similar to finance capitalism that triggered the 1929 stock market crash and subsequent Great Depression. Capitalism can be a very robust vehicle for society, but people often conflate this current neoliberal period (that is highly unstable) with all capitalism. Capitalism comes in many forms. Since 1983, household savings have distinctly declined and since the late 1970s, real wages have plummeted. Household debt is currently double income after tax (second highest private debt burden in the world). Both major parties have used private debt to run the economy and as we saw in America with the GFC, running an economy on private debt is unsustainable. Unfortunately, we're on the precipice of a debt crisis in this country. By this time next year, the contraction in the housing market will trigger a financial collapse. This time they need to let it fail, otherwise there'll be no market discipline.

Public funded, but yes. KPMG involved too. Reckon there are a few rotten apples in there.

Treasury and ASIC sat on it for weeks anyway.

I think it's a coaching and player thing. Not convinced it's development, but perhaps. The fact we regularly have those bottom non contributors even when we win and everyone seems to contribute, I tend to think it's a poorly designed system. The players also need to become more consistent and take ownership of consistency within game. Chris Scott is a good coach. I don't think their system is as good as Richmond's, but he seems to be a bit of an innovator that can turn things around quickly. I like how he remodelled their forwardline in 2019 off the back of their disappointing exit in 2018. In truth, they were lucky to even make it that season. Their two wins after the siren against us basically got them in. I think we've got 2 years left with this group and then that cliff will come unless they can really renew their midfield.