Rogue

Redleg and Whispering Jack are the ones you should be asking; I think Redleg even posted earlier that he'd represented Melbourne players before the tribunal in the past. I think the Dees did argue along the lines that you're suggesting; we'll see what happens tomorrow night.

I thought the comment on Morton was pretty clear - he needs to improve on issues and didn't do so at Casey this week. Sure, there was some fluff about attitude and class, but how many of these comments are ever very critical?

Haha, awesome work by the family member.

Use an existing thread if there is an active one (which there is: ).

I think we would have been considering bringing in one of Newton and Martin as a second ruck anyway. Obviously Newton was close to selection, given he was an emergency for the game last week (because of that, he only arrived at the Casey game at quarter time). Since Jamar is out, we'd have to bring in at least one, if not two.

Nice

How costly is it? Is the money partially or completely refundable? Do our representatives act without payment? Rather than sap the energy of the players and having a detrimental impact, I think the fact the Club is willing to take on the MRP and so forth could actually be a positive. Given that the Club has made clear that they felt Trengove acted not only within the rules, but exactly as taught, it might be positive for the players to see the Club fighting for the player. To give but one example, it wasn't so long ago that CA squibbed on the Singh 'monkey' case; according to the players, this caused significant unrest and they felt let down. While the situations are a little different, what the players were let down by was the fact that they felt they weren't supported. If we think we can win we should appeal.

I made it before you had even posted. His job is to present the opposing view to the best of his abilities. If he was so wrong we should have been able to rebut his assertions. If we did so then the problem is, as I suggested, with the tribunal.

I don't think anyone's against promoting rookies in principle. The only comments I've seen are that it's pointless to make one - or both - upgrades now, if we're not going to use them. This seems entirely reasonable to me. The first thing is to figure out who is in our best 22. If it's one or two rookies, then let's upgrade them*. If not, there's no point. *The only issue we might have is making sure we were able to upgrade Campbell at a later stage if we thought we might want/need him.

We're on the same page here.

Why? He was doing his job. If you want to petition someone, petition the people who actually made the decision. It wasn't Tinney, it was Emmett Dunne, Wayne Schimmelbusch and Wayne Henwood.

Whatever you think of the rule, it seems pretty clear that the tackler doesn't actually need to make the high contact himself. Aside from that, I think you've made a good post.

You don't have to do so at the front of level 3. My comparison with level 4 of the 'G was the height - you're far closer on level 3 of Etihad (as you would imagine, given the different in stadium capacity).

The comments come from the twitter account of CarowhineWilson, a satirical Twitter account: http://twitter.com/#!/CarowhineWilson

Zing. A 'thugish act'? You've got to be kidding. EDIT: You've been duped by a satirical Twitter account. Next time provide a link - you could have saved me 45 seconds.

Wow, terrible. I've said he's our most important, because aside from him our ruck stocks are pretty poor. Terrible timing for Spencer, who presumably would have had a crack at the big time. We'd want to see Campbell come into the side ASAP, but we might need to go with Martin and Newton for now. Newton rucked a fair bit at Casey last year and has been picked as a second ruck for us before. I think Martin and Newton both h ave potential as a second stringer, but I don't think that we would have ever intended either to play as numero uno. EDIT: North are pretty tall and so are Essendon.

My point is that even in pack situations it's amazing how many times there's only one guy actually actively going for the footy.

Wow. I thought that post was very clearly sarcastic, but apparently not for everyone! Did you not notice the following?

It's actually pretty common for a 'contested' mark to be taken when only one guy actually attempts to mark.

The front of Level 3 is alright - far, far better than level 4 at the 'G.

Absolutely. The Club has said this from the start. Thanks. I can't understand why more supporters can't grasp this idea. If you want to argue that Melbourne fans are somehow qualitatively different to other fans - and I'm not making that case here - a look at the evidence suggests that, if anythign, we're more supportive, passionate, etc. With all due respect, I think you need to get a grip when it comes to ridiculous assertions like this. Hang their heads in shame? We should be embracing all Dees fans. I find it difficult to see how some on Demonland can't understand that others place a different value and/or priority on AFL and attending games. If you're only getting to a couple of games a year why wouldn't you pick and choose the match based on how much you think you'll enjoy it? In particular, we should be embracing those who buy a membership despite not attending games regularly. For me, the membership simply makes financial sense because of the discount I end up getting on attendance, and I'd do it even it was just a 'season pass' with no benefit to the Club. However, those who buy a membership despite not getting to many games are essentially making a donation to the Club. Shame indeeed. We? All Clubs have the same issues. As I've said, if anything Melbourne supporters perform better than others on most indicators I've seen.

All season we've been going wider than we did previously, but in this game I thought we used the corridor far more than we have in some other games this year.

If there's reserved seating on Level 3 it's $38-ish for a Level 3 'premium' ticket in the front six rows/on the wing in the front half. However, that far back it's either general admission at $23.95 or a reserved seat at the gen. adm. price. Just sayin'.

Such rubbish. In case you didn't realise, all Clubs get less fans to games when the team is struggling. Ditto when it's raining etc. Do I need to actually present examples to try and bust this ridiculous myth? How about Hawthorn's pathetic 11K or whatever it was at the 'G a few years ago, far lower than we ever had in the first few years under DB, despite being terrible? How about Essendon's dire drop-off in supporters in the last couple of years, a crisis so severe it was almost mandatory that they changed Coach if they wanted to keep some semblance of support? How about St Kilda's very poor membership figures when struggling? Need I go on?

Your assertion was that if the list was extended - ie more players recruited - we will need more recruiters. I clarified that the list won't be extended, so the reason you provided for your contention doesn't exist. It might mean we need to recruit smarter - I don't agree; we need to recruit just as smart either way - but this is a different argument. Everything I've heard suggests the AFL will increase funding, just like they [apparently] have with other salary cap increases.