The Chazz

Apologies, he kicked one of the team's 14.

Is Crawford writing this because he knows that we will have a significant amount we won't be needing to pay Frawley? I would normally not waste a small part of my life reading a Crawford article, but that fact he is a Hawthorn man, and is telling US what to do with all this money that we apparently have, then I can't help but not take a small interest in his words this time.

Dawes didn't kick a goal in his last game for us. We will have Watts, Pedersen, Gawn and Frawley forward, so I'm comfortable enough that we can cover Dawes for one week. Thanks HH, that's just stuffed our chance good and proper.

I hope by the end of the season that we cut the chain from our ankles tha tis keeping us glued to the bottom 4, and find ourselves comfortably in that side that "next year" should be pushing for a top 8 spot.

The highlight with this post is trying to work out what the "censored" words are. I've tried to fill in the blanks, but I want to see if the poster and I are on the same page. Surely the mods can make it that any post that is having a go at Barrett escapes the censorship rules?

Not many do Ralph, looking at some of the above!

I'm concerned that you feel the need to turn things in to a popularity contest just so you can justify to yourself that your opinion/s could be right. At times I do think you live in quite a sad world RP. You live in Canberra from memory? Probably explains a lot. I've officially "let it go". Good day.

You say that a deal was done like it is fact, RP. Is that first, second or third hand knowledge?

Would love Chip to have a read of this article... http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/adelaide-crows-superstar-says-loyalty-and-success-drives-his-football-unlikely-to-accept-lucrative-free-agency-offers/story-fndv862c-1226920625678

Personally, I can't see any need for this "prearranged deal" theory, which is the whole point of this discussion. GC and GWS would've known that there was potential risk. Whitfield was a clear number 1 pick, and Martin was a clear number 1 pick in the minidraft, and if he were eligible for the ND, possibly would've been the standout number 1 or 2. Viney wasn't in the top 2, so GC and GWS had to decide if they were willing to take the risk. Clearly, they weren't, which I put down to common sense rather than a "prearranged deal". Fact - unless someone has insider info, we have no idea if we would've taken Viney at 3, especially if the option was there to get Jack Martin through the minidraft Fact - prearranged deals are considered draft tampering which has huge implications Fact - we were in the middle of the tanking saga. Why on earth would we put ourselves in a position of doing something else "illegal" and potentially opening ourselves up for a whole new pile of crap down the track? Sometimes things just happen because of logic, rather than hidden theories.

Here's how it was; GWS - Pick 1 GC - Pick 2 MFC - Pick 3 & 4 -Father and Son happened before trading of picks -Whitfield was a clear number 1 pick in anyones book. GWS would not have "risked" losing him by nominating Viney for their first pick. Whitfield would've then slipped through to the Gold Coast, unless they rated him higher than Martin, which is unknown. For me, there was too much to lose for GWS to play games with pick 1, especially before any trades had taken place. -Gold Coast then had to decide what their pick 2 was worth - potentially Viney (if they played games and we called their bluff), or Jack Martin (with the knowledge that they would liely gain him through the mini draft with their pick 2. Martin was a clear standout in that choice. Martin was a clear standout in the minidraft too. It is/was clearly in the best interests of both GWS and GC not to bid on Viney. They had more to lose because of the reasons I mentioned above. And bing - there were only two ways that Viney couldn't go for anything other than pick 26, and both sides chose not to allow it. Prearranged? Why would GWS give us a gift like that? They were always likely to get Pick 2 from the GC for Martin. They had no reason to do us favours. We will never know, but the "prearrangement" is equally as plausible as my scenario. Trying to suggest otherwise is ignorant, arrogant and just plain wrong.

So, they had to decide to potentially take Viney at pick 2, force our hand to take Viney at pick 3 then still trade their pick 2 for Martin, or just choose to cut out any crap and just trade pick 2 directly to GWS. Is it possible they asked themselves who they preferred most - Viney or Martin? I know you have your theory, and I will never change your view on that. And it'll be another thing that you and I disagree on that neither of us will ever have proof that one is right and the other wrong.

We're going back a couple of years now RP, so my memory isn't my greatest friend, but can you remind me in what way the GC were involved in either the deal that saw us get Hogan, or any other deal/sweetener between the MFC and GC that meant they wouldn't force us to take Viney with 3?

It's a slow news day Stuie. Lighten up.

Update from the MCG - Byrnes has been out there for just over 2 hours now for 2 kicks, 1 handball, 3 clangers, 1 behind and 1 out on the full. If he keeps this form up he should reach double figures by game time on Saturday, which should see an approx 800% improvement on his season average.

I'm told he is already on the MCG trying to get a headstart for his possession count.

Hope it's not the former - he played his 50th a couple of weeks ago.

New man in charge now Boydie, strike while the iron is hot! I know it's doubtful of regular games at the MCG, we won't know unless we ask. If we ask and get rejected, then I'm satisfied with that. Until then, we are some chance. A few years ago now we played a game on Punt Road oval (not sure if it was against the Tigers or not), and they broadcast it on the big screens at the MCG. We need to come up with that sort of thing. Gill's all about the fans and grass-roots footy - we should be the ones looking at something.

- increase in crowd numbers should a reasonable number of reserves games be played at the MCG during our home games - possible increase in members numbers should more reserves home games be played closer to the CBD Given that I think it would help improve our senior team (as new draftees will be developed 100% how we want them to), I'd imagine taht will also help increase the above. The grounds are far more superior these days. Is that because there is less footy being played on them becuase there are no reserves games? It could be argued as many games get played on the MCG now as what used to occur when the suburban grounds hosted AFL/VFL games. How does the Casey Football Club like it at finals time when most of the players that got them to finals are not allowed to play?

What's that? 2 dogs? Fcuking...

Fixed. I await my 6th warning point.

He didn't.

We MADE it, We SAVED it, Now it's time we OWN it

Is Welsh on the MFC payroll? If Casey plays finals this year, and they need to recall 10 or so players to replace the MFC listed players, what game plan will those new Casey players play? I'm not intending to fuel the myth, however it is totally understandable that the Casey senior coach would have his own ideas on how his team would play.

I like the one wheere the guy told him not to breed.