The Chazz

DaveyDee most likely saw the article on Sunrise the other day, so has most likely put his/her own spin on this. If you look back at their posting history, you will see they are frequently misquoting, or presenting something as fact without any proof or evidence. It was me that bumped it, "big boy". And one other thing, your continual kicking of this club is tiresome.

What will it do to the weaker? Make them be more creative when looking for other revenue streams. Perhaps you can ask your Uncle Cameron what he thinks? I get the feeling you will enjoy the day that the AFL ban poker machines from AFL clubs, especially ours.

The competition is built on copying others. Some take a punt by trying to be the "first", sometimes it pays off, sometimes it doesn't. If we have looked at the Richmond model (in terms of this partnership), and have found a new (to us) way of generating additional income, then I don't see an issue in it at all.

Bump... Hey @DaveyDee how's that business directory idea going? While you're still trying to get that up and running, have a read of our latest strategic alliance... http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2018-03-01/melbourne-and-chisholm-form-partnership Now, I'm sure I heard someone in here talking about creating revenue from essential services, like education. Oh, here it is...

Sounds like a day in the life of uncle @Bitter but optimistic

And let's not re-write history, the biggest reason for Richmond winning was the tagging job they did on Sloane after 1/4 time. In the first quarter, the Crows were all over them, starving their small forwards of opportunities. Sloane was running rampant. As soon as Sloane was shut down, Richmond got their hand on the ball more, which created their run (which is what they used against a slow Geelong). They got confidence and momentum, both of which you need to stop more against Richmond than any other team (especially taking the crowd factor out of it.

What's your problem? While I could've worded my post a bit better, my point was in response to why the media run these sorts of articles. It's to fill the 5th-18th teams supporters with hope before the season starts, mainly because a lot of those supporters will dare to dream, especially given the last two premiers. Does that mean I think North, Brisbane, Carlton have any chance of winning the flag? Absolutely not. But there are many of their nuffies out there that probably do, and if there is an article written about it, they will read it. Now, go away and annoy someone else please.

Gawn was picked up at 34.

The Geelong supporters that I sat around at that game (I sat in their members!) all knew we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. They were quite pleasant at the start of the game, but by half way through the 3rd quarter, they were turning on each other, and most wanted to kill me (I was actually very well behaved). They knew that they were going to lose, and hated every minute of it. All of a sudden, we kept kicking points, and they kicked some ridiculous goals (Menzel's banana from the boundary about 40m out), they got momentum, and the rest is history. To top it off, their [censored] supporters came crawling back to me half way through the last when it was clear they were going to run over the top of us.

I think the problem was that everyone thought the Bulldogs flag was such a fluke, that there was no way it'd happen again. Then bugger me, Richmond came out and fluke a flag the very next year. All of a sudden it's a possibility that any time that finished 5-18th the year before could come in and get their fluke too. The media now know this and run with it to fill papers, so that they can then fill more papers later in the year when that team fails.

You could also add MELB to the left cheek, and URNE to the right. Would create a nice balance...

You clearly didn't listen to the first podcast when Uncle @Bitter but optimistic called in.

I'm with you, Dub. First and foremost, he's our best forward. If he's "on", which we have seen a few times, you just let Jesse do what Jesse wants. If he's struggling to get near it, chuck him in the guts for 5 minutes, then gradually he returns forward, repeat if necessary (this isn't new). If he's not "on", but is getting a bit of the ball, then he and Tom just rotate FF/CHF. When one goes up the ground, one stays home (again, not new). I don't see this tank that a lot of others seem to see. He doesn't have half the tank the Riewoldt had (I await Saty to come on and tell me how hard Jesse is working at training. Tells me SFA about his game day tank). I'm all for versatility, not only as team but as an individual, but I sincerely hope Goody is more strategic when shifting Hogan in to the guts, rather than him being part of the midfield rotations.

I didn't do too bad, HT. My first post on this thread stated I didn't like big leadership groups. Since that post, I nominated Jones and Viney to remain co captains. Believed Lewis should be in again, and Gawn too. Think Tom is a bit stiff. Yes, I was looking at one more (mainly because Goody had 6 last year), but am far more supportive of a 4 man group rather than trying to plug in an extra one 'just because'.

I do need to look further than the two Jacks. Mainly because I'm not suggesting for one minute that Lever should be captain or vice captain. Leadership Group is a lot different to captaining a club. The point I have continually made is that we don't know what a player's leadership aspirations are, or if they are actually seen as a leader by their peers and the coaches. As you have said, Nev is involved in mentoring our other indigenous players, as well as being an ambassador in other areas, maybe, just maybe, this is all he wants to do. I don't know, do you?

Gawn was elevated to the LG in 2016, and was AA ruck. He thrived not he added responsibility, was in the LG last year, so it's a fait accompli situation. Lewis' age could be against him this year, and it also could depend on if Goodwin thinks we're ready for him to step out of the official role. Knowing too well that Jordy will fly the flag regardless of titles, may help make that decision, if Goody thinks so. I'm not sure if Lever is "ready"; he's definitely got the skills to do it if you listen to any of his teammates when asked how he (Lever) has settled in. Given the hefty price tag to get him to us, he'll need to step up in a lot of areas to justify what we paid. A spot in the LG could just be one of those areas. Hibberd, like Jetta, may or may not have LG aspirations, and could rather not have that extra responsibility. Neither will take a backward step if not in the LG, but based on what I have exposure to, wouldn't be out of place in it either. So if you take what I've said above in to consideration, I'd have Jones, Viney, McDonald, Gawn and Lewis. We had 6 in the LG last year, so I'd lean toward Lever than Jetta or Hibberd.

Rules state that we need to move on a minimum 3 players each year. As our list builds its depth, we need players like McKenna to make these list management decisions easier at the end of the year. Reality is, McKenna cost us very little - we probably wouldn't have used the later of the picks we gave to GWS anyway. Harsh? Yes. Sorry.

And what if he doesn't? Not against it (even though I voted No), but looking at it from both sides.

I voted "no", mainly because I'm not a huge fan of big leadership groups. With Viney, Jones and TMc locked in (you would think), then we need to find 2 or 3 more to round out the LG, where I'd imagine we would be picking from Gawn, Jetta, potentially Lever, Hibberd. I am also still of the view we need Lewis in the LG - yes, he's at the end of his career, but I think our younger players could still benefit from other 12 months of Jordan being in some formal leadership role. I also have no idea if this is/would be a title that Jetta would want himself, so I couldn't vote yes in this instance.

I'm more concerned that things from the 90s are now considered "retro".

Bi? Might see added interest from our Romsey residents...

I think it was a bit busy, but could've easily been neatened up. Still think it's the best though, but it's a personal taste thing.

Given that most of the nerdy looking creatures only weight about 45kg wringing wet, their upper body strength wouldn't need to be very high to do that.

Probably in the minority, but I still love the Schwab-designed "shield" logo the most of all the above.

Rich man's Jeremy Howe.