hardtack

The MFC can hardly be blamed for this turn of events.

I thought that it was always going to be the case as it was mooted in an article a few days ago when the coach was said he was still feeling the effects of last weeks clash...at that time Wojcinski was mentioned as a possible in, but I think he's playing VFL(?) so that bit was wrong.

Well, if you read the article, you will see that Judd took out a personal loan from the bank for half of the funding and the other half came from his earnings which surely he is allowed to spend in any way he sees fit. The only issue was his non declaration on the public register.

So? The point in all of this is that the OP is insinuating there are shady dealings going on when it is patently obvious to even Blind Freddy and his dog that this is not the case.

Jeeeeesus!!! How many times does it need to be said... the person you are alluding to WAS NOT a director until 2010... the deal was done in 2009!! So you are correct... absolutely nothing here!!

I hope 7 put together a highlights package to show at half time in the main game... quite possible considering Jurrah is making his return, Viney is making his debut and Watts is trying to atone for his relatively poor form.

Shades of Beetlejuice.

All well and good if we were talking about 10 year olds... but these are young men (adults) who are (or at least, should be) resolute in their belief that they can play the game hard, and take the good with the bad. Yes I am against unjustified abuse of players, but have no issue with fair criticism. The worst thing you can do to anyone is to shelter them from harsh reality.

Yes, and you best remember that a public forum is a place where people are entitled to express their views with relative impunity. I would hazard a guess and say that most of us are paid up card carrying members of the MFC and are as such entitled to express a view if we believe a player is not performing. I tend to avoid criticising individual players, but I can see why some might every now and then.

Yeah, Dr WTF... I think a few of us "old people" might take issue with that rather ill considered remark!

Yeah, like Deesbet or whatever it was... not a good look imho.

As I said, the person you refer to was NOT a director at the time the deal was done.

Not at all... just believe this is a non issue. If there is something untoward going on, it will surface one way or another. I just can't see the point in getting worked up over something that will have no impact on our club. The only reason the gaming authorities are up in arms is because stakeholders need to be disclosed in a public register. Judd gave his reasons for wanting to keep a low profile and it was mentioned that half the 500k came from a loan (ANZ bank) and half from his own income... who are we to condemn him for that? Edit: you will also notice that LoGiudice only became a director at Carlton in 2010 while this deal was done in 2009. Besides, I'm not sure why you have made such a big deal of it as, by your own admission, you believe nothing will happen from an AFL standpoint regardless.

Non issue.

Clark last year, Dangerfield this year... yeah, I could live with that; as someone else mentioned in another thread, didn't he come back and kick 6 goals the week after the Trengove incident?

I blame Jack Watts for this thread.

They'd be the same ones that, when they weren't at the footy, would be in the front row at Festival Hall on a Sunday, going at Killer Kowolski, Skull Murphy, Bruiser Bernard et al, with their handbags swinging.

Mind if I get up off this couch and go outside to get a breath of fresh air and clear my head? All of this analysis is doing my head in.

Well, I suppose with Selwood possibly not playing and Stokes definitely not playing, it's not beyond the realms of fantasy. Then again, there is also talk of Wojcinski coming back in for Stokes so he can chalk up game #200.

Should we code name Skilled Stadium as The Forbidden Planet? Hopefully it will all amount to a Tempest in a teacup.

If players could pick themselves... Jai Sheahan shows how it should be done in this tweet: "Back at the old stomping ground this week. Time for a debut to remember. Come on Neeldy u know u want to!!"

Didn't take note of how the voting works, but Jones was nominated on AFL360 to be in the running for this week's Unsung Hero award.

That's the Profiundly-ugly-woman... can be found at http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/File:Profoundly-ugly-woman.jpg

Actually, it just occurred to me that if you use this thread title as a "prefix" for the other thread titles, it works quite well. For example, "I blame Jack Watts for Neeld's first address" or "I blame Jack Watts for bad Melbourne supporters", and on it goes.

Perhaps it's your wording, perhaps it's my interpretation: "There are areas that everyone has to improve at. If he is going to be a great inside midfielder he has to change some of his ways." The good cop/bad cop reference was to your first post lavishing him with praise, only to have your second post taking a negative tack. And for what it's worth, I believe the reason we were able to clear the ball was more because players were getting to the contest more efficiently and therefore able to get those clearances we are usually so poor at... and I believe that was the reason your initial criticism of Jones was unwarranted... he would get the ball often enough but have no-one running past to take the clearance.