Curry & Beer

oh we managed it, we're Melbourne

It's pretty ugly isn't it 'grim' and 'bleak' are two other words that spring to mind huge injury list though, I would make 8 changes straight up if everyone was fit, is the only saving grace

Remember when they were forced to play us at the MCG instead of at home, in a semi final simply because the MCG demanded hosting rights? That was harsh! http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_match_statistics?mid=1651 We came from 40 points down at quarter time to be up by 22 at 3QT.. and still lost it So Melbourne

constantly having 10 blokes injured has cost us as it does every year

The fact you can't read means I have no interest in discussing anything with you ever again

I never said I was OK with it I said the AFL has no choice but to let them do it

yeah nah.. let's not dredge up our disgraceful past again we clearly did tank we clearly were one of the worst sides ever we clearly institued a loser's culture through this we clearly screwed up the advantage of the high picks anyway would rather not remind everybody about that lovely little period in our history from which we are still struggling to recover

so you're not going to attempt to answer the question properly then figured as much

so is it you that's going to be appointed to make an assessment and declaration of what constitutes 'obvious' perhaps you can personally conduct fitness tests after thursday night selections, to verify that all omissions are in fact genuinely unfit to play and then you can just dish out whatever penalty feels right at the time makes perfect sense mate, well done ps if stuie likes your post you are in trouble and its time to reassess

Sorry, just to make an addendum to an earlier post now that the teams have been named: The following are injured, or added to last week's 22 Dawes, Frost, Kent, Lumumba, Pedersen, Petracca, Trengove, Tyson, Vandenberg PLUS White, Harmes, Brayshaw, Kennedy-Harris That makes a total of 35 'in the mix' at the moment This means everyone at Casey this week are 'ranked' 36th best at the club, meaning they are the bottom 9 players on the list including rookies. This is where Toumpas is currently at. The others in this unfortunate group are King, Fitzpatrick, Riley, Terlich, Bail, McKenzie, Hunt and Jamar. I'm neither for or against JT at this stage but can anyone argue with this logic?

what's the rule though? you're not allowed to declare a player unfit for duty and omit him without proof he is genuinely interested? you can only have a certain number of omissions each week? if a player has a certain level of performance he cannot be dropped? do we then bring in a selection review panel to decide if a team has crossed the tanking line or not? think about what you are saying, it doesn't make sense

Yes but I am saying that it is a rubbish way to run things, and them making some ruling against North now would be the continuation of these rubbish ways, which I am opposed to

so you're encouraging the AFL to just randomly make rulings here and there and be inconsistent between clubs and different situations if they dont like something just arbitrarily call it disrepute great idea

it's not the same we got fined (and apparently brought about the disrepute) because of comments that were made around the club - not because of the players we omitted I will say though that the consequences of what North are doing are far more important - they are messing with the premiership

the fact is there is no rule that prevents them from doing this, so the AFL can't just arbitrarily tell them what to do might be a rule as of 2016 though!

we never asked anyone about anything so we never supplied an official reason OBVIOUSLY

Look at the first thing I wrote and you continue to say this are you really that stupid you continue to miss the point, or are you another one of the sad cases around here who just likes to be a deliberate peasant in order to pick arguments pathetic I hate you

your comprehension skills are alarmingly poor just read again what I have already written I am not going to repeat nyself

oh yeah just go ahead and move the goalposts we are not talking about positional changes. North hasnt asked for positional changes. we are talking about team selection but you obviously must realise that

No, not if you include the injured players, which you obviously should: Add to last week's 22: Dawes, Frost, Kent, Lumumba, Pedersen, Petracca, Trengove, Tyson, Vandenberg That means if you are at Casey right now you are at least the 32nd best player on the list, which means you are in the bottom 13, including rookies. ...and we're a horror show that has lost the last 4 games by 9 goals average, not exactly a tough side to break into fact is Michie, O-Mac, Newton, MJones, Stretch, ANB and Spencer have all been selected before him, so that's not a great sign is it

We didn't ask for permission...

so in your view, the AFL's official response should be 'aaaaah we don't believe ya North, we know what you're up to, it's unfair, you are not allowed to make any changes at all this week' think about it

um yes I get it , did you actually read what I wrote? they probably do prefer to lose but that's not the issue that is officially in discussion with the AFL if they DID come out and say 'we prefer to lose' then yes the outrage would be justified but they have plausible deniability

that is not what they have officially requested they have asked to be allowed to improve their players' health before the finals they have in no way stated they are doing this in order to lose the match it may well be that they prefer to lose, but it doesn't matter cos thats not the official reason i dont even know why theyre bothering its not like their week1 opponent/venue is going to be the difference b/n winning a flag or not they are still going to have to face the big boys anyway

usually when you use quotation marks you write what the person actually said verbatim