binman

Why?

100% agree with all of the above. I'd add that once the players have served their time there should be no further punishment

The other positive is that the MFC players who played multiple game for Casey and Smith and Keilty will know each other pretty well, which has to hep in terms of them settling in and the general vibe around the club

Its great isn't it? Plapp must be stoked as both likely to be with Casey most of the year so they don't lose the talent or the synergy and history they have with their Casey team mates. But will have the advantage of AFL level training, development and training. A win for both young men and both clubs. A very smart move.

Good get

Agree. Id add that if they dont have someone they think is worth the effort they shouldnt rookie somone just for the sake of it. Whilst its true we have the money we save a few bob by not doing so but more importantly do not have to invest the time and resources in them., resources that might be better spent on the other 47 players

And another left footer joins the club

I was thinking the same thing. I think like Kent he rushes his kicks sometimes and kicks when not balanced. he missed some very gettable shots on goal last year. He is likley to spend most of his time forward again next season so has to improve his accuracy. If he does he will be a huge weapon next year. He'll make the package look like an envelope. At the risk of being accused of hyperbole he reminds me in many ways of Gary Ablett snr. Freakish talent, x factor, a real swagger, imposes himself on the contest, takes a strong grab, is super strong through the legs and bum and is likely to play a similar role, that's to say a goal kicking half forward, who can rotate through the midfield. Hogan is the real deal and one of the best young players to come to Melbourne in a long, long time. But Petracca could be just as good i reckon, certainly just as influential. If he stays fit over this pre-season he could have a massive year in 2017 and with him Watts, Hogan and Kent (mot to mention the Weed and Garlett) up and about we will have a seriously potent forward line.

I'd be vary wary of taking anything in that Hun article on face value. I doubt he will sue the club. That said i have little doubt he won't play another game with us and in all likelihood with anyone else for that matter.

Agree on all of the above. Though whilst people can judge i guess i'm not sure it's a right and besides so. In fact i'm in the no right to judge camp! The affair is a personal issue that is nobody business but those involved in my book. As for his mental health issues i wish him all the best.

Try this http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2016-11-23/photo-gallery-wednesday-november-23

Yep fair point and i did wonder about that (ie maybe he was indoors doing weights etc). But if so given it was day one of training i reckon putting in an appearance on the track, even for a short while, sends a positive message to both fans and teammates.

What ia bit strange about the situation with H is it would appear he didn't attend at all. If he has an injury, fair enough and i don't doubt he is experiencing issues related to his concussion but then why not go into the rehab group. I mean its the first day of training for the senior player and we brought him in to the club in large part for his leadership. So why the no show? He wouldn't have even had to do anyhting, just say g'day to the new blokes and get around his team mates. Any whoo something is amiss

Well fancy that ... Stephen Dank fails to front at AFL appeal

Alcohol is involved in 21 percent of driver deaths for 18-20 year olds and young drivers have a 3-5 times increased fatality risk at all blood alcohol content (BAC) levels compared to fully licensed drivers. Lets agree to disagree.

Disagree completely. On two counts. Being born in Syria etc etc is out of your control, choosing to drive under the influence of alcohol is not. The whole point of the zero limit for P platers is that sometimes split second decision/reactions have to made that are often the difference between having an accident and avoiding one. All of us who drive know that. For inexperienced drivers any impairment at all has a disproportionate impact and greatly increases the likelihood of an accident. Consider this - P platers are 30 times more likely than non P platers to have a crash. 30 times. And that is only the half of it, for example alcohol is involved in 21 percent of driver deaths for 18-20 year olds and young drivers have a 3-5 times increased fatality risk at all blood alcohol content (BAC) levels compared to fully licensed drivers. This is not a minor indiscretion.

And for those who say it is not a hanging offence i beg to difer (well obviously it's not literally a hanging offence - we don't have capital punishment thankfully) it should not be forgotten that if Oliver had had an accident whilst over the limit and someone had been badly injured or god forbid died he would face very, very serious charges (eg culpable deriving, manslaughter) - even if the accident was not his fault.

I had to laugh that he is angry he can't give an oral submission. With his meticulous record keeping he shouldn't need to. I caught the last couple of minutes or so of the big ticket on the weekend, which was a recording of a live panel about drugs in sport (not sure of the exact topic but it seemed a WADA bashing exercise) hosted by Tracey Holmes. Dank was on the panel. I'm not an ABC basher but it infuriates me my tax dollars are going to a program that legitimizes this lunatic.

Agree totally. It makes perfect sense from a marketing perspective. Not least because it clearly says MELBOURNE which no other previous jumper does. So tourists coming to Melbourne might buy for that reason alone. And anyone who does buy it, tourist or otherwise is advertising our club and building brand recognition of the logo when they wear it. Smart and i assume they will have t shits that have the logo smack bang in the middle. Besides the club email in response to a complaint about having to have clash jumpers at all notes that there is only going to be 5-6 games where a clash jumper will be needed and its possible one might be a red jumper like last year. So no big deal. All that asie i actually like it. And by the by as survey's go the OP makes a good fist of ensuring a strong anti jumper bias.

The old 'we could have/should have taken player x instead of player y' game is one of my least favorite. I couldn't care less now. Oliver is ours and he is really good young player who has something about him that suggests a real x factor and untapped potential. He's also got a pretty wide competitive streak (not to mention a touch of the angry pills) which is exactly what Roos and Goodwin were looking for However it was clear when drafted he was a pretty immature young bloke. As evidence of that compare the draft night interviews of the Weid and Oliver. Now that's no bad thing in of itself but there is no doubt the club would have carefully considered that aspect and were well aware of what they were getting. We made a calculated gamble. They obviously have backed themselves in to get the development and support right. Which i really like (by the by i shudder to think where he would be if he arrived at the dees 5 years ago). If we deliver our side of the bargain the rest is up to Oliver. My gut feel is that most young men he will mature and work things out. All that said it is serious crime he has committed and he deserves a good wack from the club and leadership group. I'll back the club in to get that wack right.

So he thought he"d neck a couple of coopers while he waited....

Agree. Whilst in a general sense i agree that the AFL's propensity for making deals rather than open hearing etc can be problematical i reckon in this case it is a prudent and sensible approach. A good outcome i reckon and i think that it should not be forgotten that it has ensured Allan and Lambert have been penalised - and more severely than the player which is entirely appropriate. As we saw in the EFC case with no officials being penalised there is no guarantee this would have been the case if it had gone to an AFL tribunal (who may well have exonerated Whitfield) or to ASADA. The alternative to a deal would be another long protracted expensive, palaver that benefits no one - well almost no one; the lawyers loved it. It is worth reflecting that if the EFC had taken the deals offered to them early doors by ASADA a whole lot of bull dust would have been avoided. It is also worth reflecting that again as the EFC case demonstrates there is no guarantee a Whitfield would have been found guilty if it went to tribunlas or even if he did the penalty would have been any greater.

And all this from the captain and most respected player at the club. such class