binman

I would prefer above average kicking skills. Teams look quick when they hit targets regularly by foot. And look slow when they don't as they can be exposed on turnover because players have pushed ahead of the ball on the expectation/hope the disposal chain won't break. When the disposal chain breaks often multiple players are out of position and have double back and chase tail

More the point, if nibbler was a mid he wouldn't be redlining at every contest.

What are his kicking skills like? From the little i have seen of him he seems to be a good kick, but i haven't watched him enough to really assess him.

I think you are being very unfair on Jeff. Jeff understands how serious this is - he is not minimising it. He said it was a bump on the highway. Much bigger than a road.

How long is this 'short break'?

The other thing about Georgiades is you'd be paying for his potential more than the level he's at now. He's got great hands, presents well, but often goes completely missing and can get the yips kicking at goal.

Agree. The other factor is that MG is a similar size, and possibly role, as JVR. That said, if he was gettable they'd have to seriously think about it. I'd rather too many marking forwards than what we had in the back end of this year. And really good talls of the type you mention are bloody thin on the ground. Which is why a player like Lobb can command serious coin despite being so inconsistent - though I guess the fact he can ruck adds to his value.

Now she's singing Naughton, Naughton say that you love me to the tune of love me love me

Just started watching the B&F livestream and they are on break. A woman is singing the old standard - Georgia, but instead of Georgia she's singing: Georgiades, Georgiades, you are on my mind

Just started watching the B&F livestream and they are on break. A woman is singing the old standard - Georgia, but instead of Georgia she's singing: Georgiades, Georgiades, you are on my mind

Yep. And on top of that both Jackson and maxy looked hampered post bye. If all our talls can get cherry ripe and Grundy comes in JVR will be the icing.

Assuming he is fit, the other thing that Grundy would bring is his athleticism and the kms he can cover in a game. Tmac was a massive out in terms of being a genuine second tall. But as big a factor was losing his up and down the ground running. With our method, most players have to run upwards of 10 kms a game. Get tmac fit and bring in Grundy, that's two big players covering 25kms a game. Throw in BB and Max (if fit) and that's another two genuine bigs getting to contests.

I was of the view that they are on the upward trajectory and would push for top 4 next year. But you make a good points about the players they will lose. Lobb is flakey, but he is important structurally and was their best tall forward. And mundy, even at his age, was super important because, one he gets the pill and two they lack big bodied mids. The other thing is I wonder if beinging Jackson in on mega coin might create problems in the playing group. I'm tipping the pies to miss the 8.

This is the heart of the issue. You, like many, appear to be conflating the accusations against Fagan and Clarkson with those against the club, which are much broader than headline grabbing accusations (eg forced termination of pregnancies) You say 'these very allegations have been denied'. What allegations have been denied? As far as i'm aware Clarkson and Fagan have only denied telling a player their partner should terminate their pregnancy. And Fagan made a general comment in his media release denying HE was culturally unsafe with Aboriginal players. To be clear, Hawthorn, or Fagan and Clarkson for that matter, have not denied the central issue - that the evidence from the players indicates the club was seemingly culturally unsafe in the period the report covered (noting his is not a proven fact). The noise around Fagan and Clarkson just distracts from the central issue - cultural safety. As a proponent of free speech, i presume you agree that the players had every right to say what they said. They didn't put the comments into the public arena - the ABC did. Of course, when speaking to a reporter they would assume it would be reported, but one also assumes the ABC did their due diligence in terms of things such as checking sources, corroborating any accusations and assessing legal exposure. If they didn't they are rightly exposed to legal action People are free to make their own assessment of the comments from the player's and their families. Fagan and Clarkson will have their opportunity to tell their side of the story, both as part of the AFL investigation and in the media, who will be gagging to give them both air time. And people will be equally free to make their own assessment of those comments. If that doesn't satisfy Fagan and Clarkson, they can take the ABC (not the players) to court for defamation It was stupid, and so on point, by the AFL to not get ahead of the story and respond immediately they received the report, for example by coming out and doing what they now have been forced to (ie setting up a panel and investigating). Instead they chose to sit on the report, presumably till after the GF, and left the door wide open for a news outlet to gazump them. And the ABC obliged. The players don't owe anyone anything and are under no obligation, legally or morally, to participate in any way with an AFL investigation. The players participated in a process commissioned and initiated by Hawthorn. What more do they need to do? They certainly have no obligation to justify or substantiate their claims. And why would they have any interest in being interviewed again? What benefit would they derive from participating in the AFL investigation? If they do decide to go down the legal path then they will have to substantiate their claims. Perhaps you think they do have a moral obligation to participate in the AFL investigation given the impact on Clarkson and Fagan's reputation? I disagree, but for the sake of argument lets say i don't. Its neither here nor there if they have a moral obligation to participate. The bottom line is they can't be legally compelled to participate in an AFL investigation, which leaves only the courts as an option to have their 'stories tested'. If WorkCover get involved they might be interviewed as part of that process and any resulting legal action. If the players sue Hawthorn their claims will be tested in court (assuming no settlement) If Fagan and Clarkson sue the ABC for defamation their claims will be tested in court. But the players can leave the AFL to their own devices with their investigation.

Someone hack your account Andy? You're not with optus are you?

Exactly. What's all this palaver about the player's, and God forbid their families, being obligated to participate in further interviews. Leaving aside not bring obligated to, why on earth would they want to given how woefully the afl has proven to be in dealing with cultural issues. The focus should not be on pagan and clarkson. It should be on the overall situation. Specifics distract from the central problem. Sure it is important Pagan and Carkson have the opportunity to put their side of the story forward. The AFL investigation will give them that chance. No doubt they will consider media interviews too. And of course they both have the right to pursue legal action to clear their name by suing the ABC for defamation, the same way Roberts sued the AGE.

Sure, it has no credibility. And? That's not the players problem.

Says who? Why are the players obligated to do anything? There is no court case or legal action - yet. Just an AFL investigation. The Hawks, and Pagan and Clarkson will respond to the AFL investigation, people can hear what they have to say and decide for themselves if they believe them. If Pagan and Clarkson want to pursue legal action to clear their name they can sue the ABC for defamation. And if the players sue the hawks, then they'll get their chance their to put their side of the story and the player's side of things will be 'fully tested'.

Totally agree with all of the above. I'd add that it won't be long before some tool in the media will says clarkson and pagan are the real victims.

Was thinking exactly the same thing. I'd add that the AFL were happy to leave it there, even though from the get go there was talk of cultural insensitivities. Which opened the door for the ****knuckles running the camp to take the age to court for their reporting on the camp. And the Age folded, only for eddy to reveal more of what went on and basically backing up Sam McClure's initial reporting.

I assume you are suggesting we can't afford naughton? We would have had to pay Jackson close to 750 to keep him i would have thought, so we have that money and 600k for Grundy is peanuts, so that's not an issue either. If Tomlinson went to the dogs, for example, that's 600k out the door for starters. I'm assuming an advantage of having four long term contracts in Salem, Gus, Tracc and Oliver is that it creates opportunities for some creative accounting in terms of balancing the books. For example they might have paid a big chunk up front so they had space nect year (for example to pay Jackson).

Just a clarifying question - was this an attempt at humour? If yes, I don't get it. If no, I don't get it.

Burt was a welfare officer?

And you even have your very own theme song:

I remember reading last year that he was super keen to remain a forward and saw himself as a career forward