old dee

13 minutes ago, Willmoy1947 said:

I reckon Kolt is King's Chapman, and they will persevere.

Did I just "nap" that?

Where are you playing him?

31 minutes ago, Cranky Franky said:

Agree fully.

If AFL had any brains they would ban contracts longer than 5 years.

Restriction of trade it will never happen. What they should change is this nonsense of players changing clubs and keeping the existing contract. You change clubs you should have to negotiate a new contract with the new club or stay with the existing club on your contract.

24 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

Low deals can also turn sour very quickly.

If he falls apart or loses it. They haven't lost much. As I said it's low risk for gws.

53 minutes ago, bing181 said:

Too early to say. In any case, the club has an obligation to leave no stone unturned in trying to maximise their return and make an AFL player out of him. Blake Howes had decent raps on him as a draftee, but it's only now in his 5th season that he seems to be about to cement a place. Some players take time.

I understand that bing. I am just making a comment on what I have seen so far. Just my opinion.

On 19/10/2025 at 07:31, dazzledavey36 said:

Considering Melbourne clearly didnt have any behaviour clauses in the initial contract, I presume it just remains the same with a few minor adjustments from the Giants.

Something tells me Giants may have underestimated the petulant child they're getting.

They got him for nothing it is a low deal.

1 hour ago, Greg Schneider said:

Don’t love that we’re playing Kolt at half back over Xavier Taylor just get games into him would’ve been my thought

Imo Kolt won't make it. So a waste as you say.

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m far from a Sharp fan and I might rejig the team to have Kolt or X Taylor in and play Rivers on ball more.

There’s also a likelihood Laurie or Sharp are filling a spot for Culley to be right for round 1.

I am a little skeptical that we can play taller with Melk or another ruck/forward too for that 5th bench spot. Worth a try at some stage but probably not round 1.

There’s also the reality that unless Onley, Matthews or Mentha take a big step up we’re going to see guys like Sharp and Laurie a fair bit. We don’t have anyone else!

You could be right but Sharp and Lawrie would need to make big improvements to be regulars in the senior side. Sadly I think they both fall into that group who are too good for VFL but NQR at senior level.

7 hours ago, The Jackson FIX said:

Playing an AFL match (of any kind) at a rural oval with limited capacity because of construction is one of the sillier decisions I have heard for a while

It's the AFL so llogic rarely surfaces in there decisions.

On 21/02/2026 at 14:56, mandeelorian said:

Does anybody know if you need to purchase a ticket for this match?

There was an email a week or two back saying it is a ticketed event.

On 22/02/2026 at 13:09, Demongirl35 said:

Last one before the season.

I’d like to see

B: Taylor* Petty Lever

HB: CJ Turner Lindsey

C: Langdon Steele Howes*

HF: Chandler JVR Melks

F: Fritsch Kentfield* L.Pickett

R: Gawn K.Pickett Langford

Int: Windsor Kolt* Heath Rivers Jeffo*

Players with * are in question for round 1

Unsure if we’ll go with Gawn, Heath, Kentfield, JVR and Mihocek round 1. As much as I’ve never been a fan of that many talls I don’t mind it. Kentfield has some pace and JVR seems to be putting in with his running.

Hopefully Kolt works on his kicking and decision making because he had a few to many turn overs again North. Other teams would make us pay for most of them.

I’m hoping Matthews makes it l, as it will free up Trelly up the ground but not lose a small in the forward line. Trelly seems to have a good tank and speed to burn. Exciting times!

Kolt won't make it. There are a number who are better. There isn't a position for him..

On 21/02/2026 at 14:45, DeeSpencer said:

From the 23 that started the North game:

Out: Heath, Mihocek (inj), Kolt

In: Gawn, Kentfield, Salem

FB: Lever T Mc CJ

HB: Salem Disco Lindsay

C: Langdon Steele Howes

HF: Chandler JVR Fritsch

FF: Jeffo Kentfield L. Pickett

Foll: Gawn Sparrow K. Pickett

Int: Langford, Rivers, Windsor, Laurie, Sharp

Subs: Heath, Kolt, Petty, Melk, X Taylor

Selection questions before round 1:

• Can we play 4 key forwards, 2 rucks or Melk or is the extra runner too vital for the game plan?

• Can Petty dislodge Lever or T Mc?

• Can Kolt or X Taylor dislodge a more proven back flanker

• Will Culley be right to go and how does that rejig the midfield mix

Sharp DS! Surely there are players with more potential.

On 21/02/2026 at 08:39, Demonland said:

Melksham has been back in full training for several weeks and took part in last week’s intraclub match. He was also on the track on Wednesday, so unless there’s been a new setback or recurrence, he was probably just managed this week. I’d expect him to line up against the Tigers.

It's a very long season and at his age and previous injuries I think they are just holding him back. I would not be surprised to see start in round 3. Now in AFL speak that is actually the 4th round because round 1 is actually round 2 and oh hell I give up. He will start a couple of weeks after the much younger players start.

2 hours ago, BDA said:

And the other thing, labours buddies love a big build. A $100 million project will line plenty of pockets.

It won fix the highway to Ballarat which is in terrible condition.

2 hours ago, BDA said:

Being broke never stopped them spending money before. That said a project in an affluent area like Caulfield wouldn’t be a priority

Agree, spending on a perceved conservative sliver tails football club probably doesnt give them 1 extra vote.

5 hours ago, Roost it far said:

It’ll happen if Munz gets behind it, otherwise I’d suggest it’s dead. I could be wrong but it sounds like our Board and club think they hold some kind of bargaining power….sounds like egos at midnight to me. I stand by my comments that if this falls over it has to take the bulk, if not all, of the Board and possibly Guerra with it. You don’t get to this point to have it fall over unless you’re a bit of a fool.

There is a long line of people at the MFC who were on this project who have since been shown the door, a President and CEO have already been unable to get this up and are now gone.

1 hour ago, BDA said:

why do you think there'll be a change of government

Either way they have no money the state is broke.

2 hours ago, daisycutter said:

od, there is already a drive-through tunnel on the mid west side

not all construction equipment would fit through, but those that don't could be craned in and left inside for extended periods. plus, there is no building construction inside, just equipment for ovals and landscaping. no necessity for long (if any) access across the actual track.

it all looks quite manageable without much interference to the race club

Except they don't us or anyone on the inside of "their track"

4 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

They can delay and push, but if Melbourne FC, local & vic government and Caulfield come to an agreement they can’t stop it. Anyway time will tell, I’ll remain cautiously optimistic until we hear otherwise. I also won’t panic about an article in a pro horse racing media group.

See there is a believe the big stopper “vic government”.

5 minutes ago, DistrACTION Jackson said:

Not their land OD. I’m sure they obviously have some sway in meetings with the CRRT, but end of the day they will have the final decision, which will also include benefits to the Glen Eira community. Having a hugely upgraded public space would be a big draw card I would think.

That maybe but they have been sitting on it for 100 years and they are not going to give up without a fight, right now the tactic is delay, delay it’s only eight months till the next election and unless there is a miracle we will have a change of government. Exactly what they want with then a government with no money who have told the people they will reduce debt. Where is the 100million coming from? Look I want to be there like most members do but I just don’t see it happening. The club has been silent for at least two years a tactic that so has produce very little. If Eddie was at the MFC construction would be underway months ago.

2 minutes ago, sue said:

Might be true. But maybe they are in no position to insist. Let's hope.

They have been stalling for a year or more. I have never seen any comment from them with even a hint of support for the idea.

4 hours ago, Redleg said:

There are several methods of building a tunnel under a racetrack without disturbing the surface track.

They are commonly used and are very suitable, but if you would rather believe the BS, so be it.

Other solutions could be zip liners, helicopters, a zeppelin, air balloons, a giant slingshot, magicians to float them across, hovercrafts, witches broomsticks, gliders, army tanks running on belts, players rolling from one side of the track to the other, a huge safety net strung over the track, trained eagles to carry players, a crane with a rope to swing across the track, rocket ships and other assorted space craft, if you don’t like Sue’s idea of shooting them across from cannons.

My Leg the one thing that is very clear to me is the racing club do not want us or anyone else in the middle of their track. They are holding out till the change of government at the end of the year. IMO the current government don't really care about a conservative football club in their current broke position. They are also happy to let it drift. Time is on their side.

4 hours ago, Demonstone said:

This notion of needing to close the track for a year begins with horses.

It ends with

hit.

Very good D, my comment of the day.

4 hours ago, sue said:

OD, there are ways of making tunnels that are not ditch & fill. But as many earlier posts state, there are other ways of getting players across the track without a tunnel. I prefer shooting players out of cannons. We'd have massive crowds at training sessions.

Now maybe your last 2 sentences are true - but all we can do from the outside is guess if that is true. And then guess whether their supposed opposition would be enough to scuttle things. But I see no point in guessing on the gloomy side at this point.

The one thing that is clear to me us that the racing club don't want us or anyone else in the middle.

On 20/02/2026 at 14:39, sue said:

I'm no engineer, but I can't for the life of me see why construction of a tunnel would mean no racing for a year no matter how it was done.

But if true, how about an overpass - extra exercise for the players going up and down.

Sue after construction is finished you have to then replace the turf on the track. It then takes time for the surface that has been dug up to assume the character as the rest of the track. Believe me it would mean a considerable amount of time with no racing on the track. On to top of that they simply don’t want us there. End of story.

22 hours ago, titan_uranus said:

On 21/02/2026 at 11:08, Fritta and Turner said:

and dog walkers are already crossing the track nearly every day

Some of the “problems” seem blown out of proportion in the article.

So is this some sort of MRC leak to scupper the plan?

Are we cooked?

Yes.