nutbean

Not 100% accurate. My reading is the WA back bencher will put forward a spill motion - the majority will have to vote for a spill yo take place. If successful then all positions are declared vacant and candidates come forward. There is no guarantee that the motion for a spill will be successful.

If however his career just ambles along with mostly mediocre performances highlighted by a few standout games, this will help to demonstrate that his time at Melbourne was not severly impacted by poor development. This argument is a stretch. First of all you are taking one lazy, brainless footballer in isolation. Most importantly - you have one lazy brainless footballer who was probably indulged at Melbourne from the age of 18 to 28 and to suggest that after 10 years of this he doesn't turn it around after one year at Freo, that it is no reflection on our development process and culture ? There is an old adage about not being teach old ( and incredibly stupid) dogs new tricks. I'm not suggesting that if a Roos would have got to Colin at age 20 he would made him into a disciplined footballer - what I will suggest that if Roos wouldn't have been able to get commitment and discipline from Sylvia he would recognised it and moved him on much earlier.

He has been in a moonboot/crutches/limping for what will be the best part of two seasons. Not a good look to retire Mac Jnr whose body was starting to fail as opposed to a player who has limped for two years. If the medical opinion came back conclusively that Trenners is going to struggle to ever play football again then I would suggest that club would have parted company and said that the medical opinion is that he will never be able to handle the rigors of AFL Football, I truly believe that the medical jury is out whether he can come back. I understand the bad look theory but if the medical report came back that he wouldn't play again then release the report and say we would love to keep him but have a look at the prognosis. I tend to agree that it is a bad injury to came back from and the odds are not with him but I don't agree with the theory that club is keeping him on knowing he wont play again.

George Dubbya is a colossal gumby though... makes me think more warmly of our Tony ( but that's for another thread !)

Agreed with the addition that if the medical staff thought he was no chance at all to play again they would have paid him out and delisted him and freed up a spot.

Yes they would have. That is the point. They see value in a fit Trengove. To my mind we saw more value in giving up Trengove and pick 2 or 3 for perhaps Dangerfield ? Once the deal fell over - we could have done exactly as some here suggested - delist and rookie him - but that meant another club could possibly draft him. If the clubs thinking was he was a bust - as much as we don't sometimes like hard calls - I would think they would have gone with - Jack has played 2 games last year. He played the previous two years where his pace and kicking deserted him - his foot didn't allow him to do the things he wanted to . He has been diagnosed with a navicular injury. He was in a moon boot for most of last season and now it has recurred an he will miss the better part of this season. It is our medicals team opinion that he won't be able to perform at the highest level possible - so with regret we are delisting him. If I was trying to decipher the clubs thinking on Trengove it would be - A fit Trengove is probably best 22. His foot may or not may not recover - we have a year to find out - we can afford to roll the dice. At the end of this year we may have a good player back for 2016 or we he will be retired.

Disagree with this - the offer from the tigers was a Brock McLean type of offer that couldn't be refused IMO - especially if the suggestion is true that we trying to use pick 12 coupled with pick 2 or 3 to land a marquis player. I think the club knows his abilities when he is fit and have very little to lose by letting his injury and recovery play out this season. As most have said - whether he can get back or not is the million dollar question. I'll let medical professionals smarter than me work that one out.

You didn't mention that apparently the deal was pick no 12 for pick 23 and Trengove. You don't think that that what was on offer for Trengove may have had something to do with him touted as being up for trade at the Tigers ? If, as suggested, pick 12 was part of a bigger deal to get a marquis player to our club you can understand why they would have moved in on ? You have put together 1 +1 and got 3.

so if they are suspended and can't play they are going to protest by suspending themselves and not play. Yeah - I get that.....

I think we have forgotten how effective he was at the end of his first year and 2011. Whilst he wasn't ever lightening fast - he pace wasn't treacle as it become over the past two or so years. His body has failed him. He is a smart footballer who would be very handy based on his early form. Whether his body will ever allow him to return to his 2011 output is the big question.

At the end of the day ..we have heard words from many an administration/coach over the years. They mean little to me - action not words. Whilst the "actions" of Roos and co haven't translated into a meteoric rise up the ladder I am feeling more bullish than I ever have before.

You have taken a comment from PJ and embellished. If we win 13 games, finish 9th and miss out on the finals by percentage and bad umpiring is this year a write off ? Are we still rubbish or will this be a dramatic improvement ? I had the pleasure of talking a few years back to Robbie and he never ever said that he went into every game thinking the team was going to win - misquoted. He said that he went into every game thinking the team COULD win. There is a huge distinction there. Your argument by extension is that we should not aim to just to make the finals but win the premiership every year - nice sentiment but realistic ??? (nah)

We are finally looking like a club that knows what it is doing rather than the laughing stock we have been for too long. To announce the aim to play a final in 2016 sits comfortably with me. To announce we aim to play finals this year after finishing 17th - smacks of stating a goal because it is an expected statement rather than acknowledging how far back we are coming from. Remember Schwab ( Hawthorns coach) stating that they were going to win the premiership ? You can state goals that will have follow on consequences. I would like a goal to be that the games where we lead or are in the game in the last quarter we win - by extension, last year , that would have got us close to the finals.

I prefer to think of my philosophy's as confused but content.

I would like to Salem play some of his footy off half back - He didn't get a great deal of the footy at half forward ( being a first year player combined with limited opportunities as a half forward) - he will get more of it at half back and we know that we want the ball in the hands of good users like Salem.

the vast majority of those in the know ?

You disagree with NASA's statement ( from their website) ? Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

Well..this is escalating quickly..

i should have qualified - 97% of "climate scientists" ( still pretty generic)

I think that this is sometimes lost in the whole debate. The goal posts will move, there will be corrections to modelling and learnings as we go forward. As yet, I have not read of any corrections or shifts that has forced climate scientists to suggest that the problem of climate change is a myth.

Actually - only the deep ocean is not heating - the top part half of the ocean is - but as pointed out in the article - it does not account for the cumulative lack of heating in the atmosphere. I was being factitious - I haven't resorted to casting colourful observations on scientific opinion as I am far from qualified to do so - To my mind there is scientific consensus on where there is heading. Have all the predictions been correct - absolutely not. Has there been some alarmists entering the debate - absolutely. Has there been scientific reasons for why certain modeling has not been as accurate as it should be. Absolutely. My frustration with this debate is the argument - in the casting of doubt on the entire science because certain parts of the models have not played out exactly as expected. New papers are being published regularly that shift predictions that were made and forward new views that will alter previous models - NASA in the article you linked pointed out specifically says that this paper does not throw suspicion on climate change itself ( which you chose to ignore) - the scientific community (well 97%) are not suggesting for a moment that the outlook is any less glum or that extent of the problem is any less. I will retire from this debate with you as I cannot envisage either us changing our position on the Science.

thanks for that... did you miss this part of article ? Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself. "The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details." and ....did you miss this part of the article ? Deep ocean warming contributed virtually nothing to sea level rise during this period. Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. hmmm unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up ? Interesting language - I scoured the article for the bit about "desperate hypothesis" but I couldn't seem to find it anywhere.

You may have information to the contrary but below is straight off the NASA website - please - when you produce the NASA information which debunks the hypothesis - can you also highlight where NASA included that not only do they dispute it but the rationale of warming ocean rather than warming atmosphere is a "desperate hypothesis as to why he original hypothesis that C)2 is heating the atmosphere didn't occur". ( sounds like something that NASA would say) Warming oceansThe oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969.8

You got on answer on your oft repeated "1998" - I'm not sure what more you want. Take small random samples from ANY 15 years and you will get fluctuating results. You ask me to go back to prior 1998 to see where scientists discussed ocean warming as factor that would cause a "hiatus" in the warming. I haven't looked and maybe they didn't. Because they didn't predict it - because the heating occurring in the last 15 years has been in the oceans rather than the atmosphere - does that make the final outcome wrong ? "Don't you find it a little curious that the scientists who are saying the hiatus is not meaningful are also the ones who didn't predict it in the first place?" - it is obvious you don't accept any of the explanations on this hiatus. Does providing reasons after the event due to gaining more knowledge and insight, rather than foreseeing it before the event make it any less valid.

we stand in the same shoes.