La Dee-vina Comedia

My thanks to Whispering Jack and anyone else listening to Trade Radio and keeping us up-to-date. It's the off-season equivalent of the hard yards being put in by track watchers keeping the rest of us who haven't got the time, access or inclination to keep ourselves informed. Much appreciated.

My thanks are extended to the Administrators and the Moderators (even though an occasional pithy witticism of mine gets scrubbed). I like that it's about 90% football with the other 10% varying from pop culture to nostalgia and from history through to literature, linguistics and logic. I've really missed the track reports and hope we can get the opportunity to have them back next year. And, finally, many thanks to the posters who keep me informed, educated and entertained.

So is Demonland (Demonland the site, not Demonland the administrator) That's the nature of the silly season.

It may be that the MFC has ruled out taking Hogan back. But, please, saying it's "official" because a journo made a statement is not "official". Firstly, the journo might be mistaken; secondly, the club might be playing games and just playing hard to get in order to finesse a better deal. Can we please reserve the use of "official" for when the words are seen and heard to be coming out of the mouths of club officials or on letterhead released by the club?

He was only a good kick on his left, though. And, like we've seen with so many others, an ability to kick isn't a saving grace if you don't get the ball often enough. I hope he has a good career at the Bulldogs.

If this happens (and I'm not doubting you), Ben Buckley might be in an awkward position. He's been on radio after you posted this to say that a selection process and panel to select the new coach will be announced soon. (He's not a politician, is he?)

I was going to click "Like" because you provided the information in response to a question asked earlier. But "Like" doesn't seem appropriate in the circumstances.

With all due respect to Shaw, do we know it's a mental health problem? It could be something else. I can think of two other options but would rather not speculate.

Interesting. Not so much the person, but the speed of the decision. Perhaps the NMFC already knew from Rhyce Shaw that he wasn't coming back and had his permission to start looking. If not, it put NMFC in a very difficult position if they were interviewing potential new coaches while uncertain whether Shaw was coming back or not. Edit: Thinking about it a bit more I suspect Shaw and the NMFC had been negotiating a departure package so the club knew he was leaving. And I suspect had his permission to look for his replacement.

Interim or permanent?

Off topic, but I'm sure if we turn our minds to it, we could completely re-cast the Harry Potter movies. We've already seen Chris Judd as Voldemort. I'm convinced Charlie Dixon could play Hagrid with no additional special effects to make him look like a giant.

Perhaps Hawthorn and the Bulldogs haven't received direct financial support from the AFL. But the management of the competition by the AFL Commission, particularly going national in 1987, is what brought in the TV rights revenue and increased sponsorship income which have benefitted all clubs, incuding Hawthorn and the Bulldogs. Sustained onfield success is not, in itself, a magic panacea. North Melbourne was extremely successful onfield during the Carey/Archer/Longmire era and were unable to benefit from it.

I suspect Covid will be the excuse for various changes on the commercial side of the competition. The night Grand Final this year is one. (I'm not opposed to it this year, but would like it back in its traditional timeslot next year, although I suspect a night GF is here to stay.) The fluid fixturing will be another. To be fair, when revenue has taken as large a hit as it has, I can understand the AFL's interest in exploring options with greater financial reward. What I don't understand, though, is how fluid fixturing helps financially when the AFL has two TV broadcasters. Boosting ratings on one (7 network) will be to the detriment of the other (Fox/Kayo). Perhaps it's more about the next TV rights deal and creating a more attractive proposition for potential bidders.

For months I have been dead against having Hogan back on the basis that he appears to require the use of too many club resources, particulalry to help him with his off-field behaviour. Yet, the moment I heard that Fremantle has confirmed that they would be interested in trading him, my brain's first thought was that I hope he comes back to us. This is why passionate Melbourne supporters should not make list decisions! And now that the adrenaline or dopamine or whatever it was that triggered that emotional response has gone, I'm once again of the view that his future is not with us. I just hope that he can be happy within himself whatever happens from here.

I wouldn't have thought having "ruck skills" is the same thing as being a "skilled footballer". That would be like saying Addam Maric was an elite kick. In other words, there's more to it than having one string to the bow.

Am I reading you correctly? You've said that teams should select skilled footballers rather than athletes and in the next post said Nic Naitinui should have been selected instead of Watts. Isn't that a bit inconsistent?

Does it matter? If he put them on correctly, it looks funny; if he got them back-to-front it's even funnier.

He saved the VFL from itself. I know someone who worked with the Government at the time. If it hadn't been for Samuel and the work he did with the Government, the old VFL would have collapsed taking our club with it.

My view had always been the opposite. I believed Malthouse couldn't get the best out of individuals which is why so many players left under his watch. I suspect the truth is somewhere in the middle. That is, Malthouse was able to get the best out of those individuals, but only those who could tolerate him and vice versa.

Nice tongue twister. I struggled just reading it without even trying to say it out loud.

I'm not sure that this statement is correct. I recall The Age ran a story a few years ago about 7 Victorian clubs almost being wound up in the early 1990s (or, perhaps, late 1980s) by the Commissioner for Corporate Affairs because they were technically insolvent. I realise that's 30 or so years ago, rather than 25, but I think the AFL has worked hard over the last quarter century to reduce the differential betwen rich and poor.

You're a hard marker. You don't think Petracca is a top ten player based on Brownlow and Coaches' Association votes?

Even if we'd drafted Neale we would probably have stuffed up his development and eventually traded him for someone else who was equally disappointing.

I think the reason why all clubs are required to pay 97% (or whatever the figure is) of the salary cap is so that players who are drafted to a poor team have the same reward opportunity as players drafted to a good team. In other words, why should a player who has no choice as to which team he plays for get paid less because he plays for the bottom team on the ladder than a player who just happens to be lucky enough to have been drafted to a top four team?

I've been in favour of this idea for some time. The longer a player stays at a club, the more the club gets to discount that player's salary from cap calculations.