hardtack

Precisely... it's hard to clear the ball effectively if there is no-one running off him to take the ball.

Well, there's at least one supporter on these forums who can't find his way out of the General Discussion forum and into the Footy related forum :-)

As I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, they took him off for a couple of minutes to check it out and then let him back on to continue playing, so it must be assumed that they weren't too concerned about it; and it certainly didn't stop him from trying to kill himself later in the game.

Which is still better than last year I believe... why do we always have to look for negatives?

Good are pretty much covered already. Bad were our inability to hold marks and our seeming fear of tackling... lost count of the number of times our players stood back while an opponent had the ball and allowed them to make effective disposals again and again (particularly in their forward half).

Given the odds they have been giving us to date against weaker opposition, I think you will find that they just might be agreeing with RF.

Your whole premise (and conclusion) is based on an "imagined" conversation between each of Sanderson and Neeld and the board - time will tell if Neeld was the right choice.

Was about to post the same thing... I'm pretty sure that happened when he did a face plant which saw him going off the ground for a couple of minutes for a check up on his arm (I think it was).

Not really... the fact that within lierally days of the EW sponsorship going belly-up, Cam has sealed not one, but three new sponsorship deals (WebJet, Hertz and Opel), which although maybe not exceeding the total of the EW deal (which with the benefit of hindsight was probably unrealistic anyway), hopefully will prove more valuable in the long term. Posters such as Thomo were happy to condemn, but where are they now? And before anyone says, oh, but the possibility of such and such being a sponsor was handed to Schwab on a platter, understand that he is still responsible for convincing the potential sponsor of the benefits to them and for ultimately sealing the deal; for example, the Kaspersky sponsorship may have been handed to him by a supporter within the company, but it still wouldn't have happened without Cam's hard work and assurances.

Interesting how everyone was jumping all over Schwab for the collapse of the EW deal and his lack of due dilligence etc etc and calling for his head... thus far I have seen very little love for him in this thread. Funny (not) how we love to kick a man when he's down but can't find it in ourselves to praise him when he does well. Thanks Cam... good get. (by the way, does anyone have an idea of the $ worth and agreed period for this deal?)

Maybe he's Molly's love child? (at least I almost got my wish of them wearing the number 11 over their hearts - on a clover instead over the sternum :-) )

It's a doddle! I can actually handpass the 40 metres after running for a full 120 mins and kick it 65 metres into the wind... all while fending off two or three opposition players (and then I wake up). I think we will be 0-11 and I believe we will win no more than 3 games for the entire season.

Yes, I have to admit I was revolted when I read back what I had written.

I imagine (or at least, hope) the powers that be at Larrikin Music won't be sleeping too well tonight. A sad loss.

Possible Clarendon "Ohms"... one of Australia's largest builders?

Thanks for that DC.

Excellent news! Finally things are starting to look up for the MFC... now, if only we could secure a win against the Doggies.

Hertz facebook page as just tweeted by MFC: http://www.facebook....oratioAustralia By the way, does anyone have any idea what this sponsorship is worth on $ terms? (not mentioned in MFC article)

Strict adherents to any faith could quite rightly (in their minds) make the same argument.

If you're a fundamentalist christian, there was no stone age. All religions are farcical to me, but if people choose to believe, then that's fine... and I see absolutely no reason why prayer rooms should not be provided. If they do not inconvenience you in any way RF, just what exactly is your problem?

Pm24 isn't so wrong with that comment. For example, do you really believe that with so few incursions into our forward 50, Clark could afford to attempt to play on when he had marked so close to goal? That effort had be shouting at the TV! I think your reaction to pm24's comments are a little over the top...he was hardly crucifying the guy, just providing a fairly well balanced assessment.

Giving this a bump as a reminder to all... currently half way through the second quarter,

I have watched the replay several times and still believe that Jackson is in no way responsible. It was purely momentum resulting from the Grimes tackle - they fell together and I will say it again, Jackson simply did not have time to make a conscious effort to land with all of his weight on Grimes' head.

Easy to make that albeit errant conclusion by watching a slo-mo replay, but watched at normal speed, there is absolutely no way he could have made such a conscious decision and I would say, no way he did... take off the red and blue goggles.

I have watched that footage several times and I'm sorry, but I just do not see any slinging motion at all on the part of Jackson. Grimes was holding Jackson and both were turning, lost balance and Jackson landed on top of Grimes. No ones fault. I think that trying to find something in that incident is really taking parochialism a bridge too far... if anyone is to be blamed, it should be the MCC (I assume it's their call) for having that surface so close to the field of play.