La Dee-vina Comedia

October 24 is also only one week before the Queensland State election. I expect the Qld Premier to do everything possible to get the Grand Final to enhance her credentials as a "major event" securer which will be fresh in the voters' memories before they even know what the Qld offered by way of financial and other benefits. Keep in mind, too, that the Vic Government still has a say in the location through its agreement with the AFL. I wonder whether it might have a preference for one of WA or Qld? It has already been reported that the Vic Government has indicated to the AFL it will not countenance the Grand Final being held in NSW for fear of that State usurping Victoria as the "major events" capital of Australia.

If we were already certainties to play finals or had no chance of playing finals, we would win 4 out of the next 5. But because each game still has meaning, our psychological weakness means we won't win the number of games we need.

Could we make a statement by building a floating gym and admin offices on the Yarra just near Gosch's paddock? It would be just like the new Apple store in Singapore. [I know it will never happen.]

I trust you mean "virulent" in its meaning of "infectious" rather than the more common interpretation of "hostile". An earlier poster claims not be an anti-vaxxer because he/she will have vaccinations that protect his/her own health but doesn't seem to understand that vaccinations are necessary to stop the spread of infection to others.

There may be an obvious answer to this question which escapes me right now, but who was the last player to leave Melbourne for another VFL/AFL club and then come back? Anyone since Carl Ditterich? I appreciate that it happens rarely across the competition, although there have been some notable exceptions, such as G Ablett Jr, Paul Salmon, John Barnes and Trent Croad. But it's rare and, I suspect a guide to suggest that it won't happen this time, either.

There won't be consistency in decision making by the MRO or Tribunal until the principle of potential to do damage, rather than the outcome, becomes the key consideration, whether its a sling tackle a bump or any other action. If they haven't already been doing so, it should be something the Players Association should be pushing for for the long-term health management of their members.

Whether you like it or not, you're an anti-vaxxer. Selective in which vaccines you wish to have, but an anti-vaxxer nevertheless. And if you look closely in the mirror, you might also see traits of selfishness and disrespect for others. If you don't see that, you might also need spectacles for your eyes before you make a further spectacle of yourself.

How on earth can you identify that Hibberd's dropped deeper and Lockhart is at half-back when watching on TV? That's well beyond my skill set.

A couple of passionate St Kilda supporting friends of mine have always stated that Muir was the best St Kilda player they have ever seen. And they've seen Tony Lockett, Daryl Baldock, Ian Stewart, Nick Reiwoldt, Lenny Hayes and Nicky Winmar. That's high praise for his footballing talent indeed. It's a pity for all of us that we didn't see more of his pure football skills.

I can't see a problem with Pert being in Qld. If he were in Melbourne he'd be working from home. At least he's near the football department and can do just as much commercial work there (whether it's about securing a home base or shoring up our finances) as he can in Melbourne at the moment.

My first thought is to wonder why a proven ball winner ends up being unwanted by two clubs.

Actually, I find them both quite unappealing.

I understand where you're coming from but Gale's reference to Milat should really be seen as a throwaway line. Would he have said that in a pre-prepared media release? I doubt it. But when speaking on radio without prepared comments I'm prepared to give anyone a bit of slack. The better question is why a successful team all of a sudden is starting to sound more like a pack of whingers when everything should be rosy and bright. I wonder whether they have some concerns about where they're headed? Perhaps they're closer to the edge of that hypothetical cliff than we realise and they know it.

I should have been clearer. If the $50m or $35m in exposure benefits are genuine, then the AFL can justify having the finals or GF in Brisbane. If the $50m/$35m is ethereal the AFL can nevertheless use it to justify using the Gabba, should that be its choice. I agree with you, though, that under current circumstances the hard cash offer from WA, if not substantially matched by the Qld Government, would be hugely tempting. However, as the Queensland Government has an election on 31 October 2020, I expect the Qld Premier to make a cash offer that meets or almost meets what the WA Premier is offering to get the GF in Brisbane as a "major event" just before the election.

The AFL has always been able to justify games in exotic locations (China, New Zealand) by talking about how much value in dollar terms they got out of the exposure. If they believe the exposure in Queensland would be worth more than $50 million, (or $35 million if it's just about the GF), or, more correctly if they can find some figures that justify arguing that it's $50/35 million worth of exposure, that would make Brisbane the easy choice.

I wondered at the time, and still do, whether Melksham's poor kick was actually a well thought through strategy to keep the ball low because of the wind but one he poorly executed. The converse was Fritsch's floater which looked terrific until it swung sideways.

A lifetime's experience tells me that whenever you have a choice between a conspiracy or a [censored]-up, choose the [censored]-up every time. I don't think the AFL is clever enough to organise this conspiracy. It is, however, perfectly capable of this type of mistake. (As an aside, lots of AFL staff got the chop yesterday. I wonder how close Steven Hocking was to the Gil-otine blade? Seems to me there's a lot in his job description that isn't going the way that it should.) Edit: for "censored" read "rooster", or at least the derivative or nickname often used inoffensively as in "Coq au Vin" (Let's see if that passes the officious auto-censor. I had used a zero instead of the letter o, but that didn't work)

I suspect the main driver about this change is to save money. I assume the extra costs of flying plus, presumably, accommodation, are offset by other savings. Maybe there will be a significant reduction in the number of teams to be fielded across the four states/territories.

Good Lord! Olivier. I know Clarry has been accused of acting, but this is going too far! Good to see so many defenders getting votes in a game in which Goodwin complained about the lack of defensive effort. I assume he was talking about the mids and forwards more than the defenders. At least the back half did their job. I agree that May, Lever, Tomlinson and Salem should all be in the votes. And I struggle to identify two others from the other 18 players on the ground.

Questions any club would have to ask: Can he play to the same standard as when he first started his career? Is his head in the right place? If not, will it improve if he comes to us? Is his body OK, in particular his troublesome foot? If not, will it improve if he comes to us? What will list sizes be in 2021 and beyond? Does that limit the number of "project players" (if he's considered to be a project player) that the club can have on their list? Could we use him or do we have his position adequately filled? Will his asking price fit comfortably within the salary cap? Is he worth the remuneration he asks for? Could his pay packet end up causing other players to be aggrieved or even force them to leave to create space? If so, who would he effectively replace on the list? Would we want to lose that player? With this year's draft compromised by lots of father/sons and academy players combined with a lack of junior football because of Covid, is he a better prospect at the price to be paid (in draft picks) than what may be available in the draft? Given none of us know the answers to any of the above, how can anyone say they think Melbourne should pursue him or not?

You're not going to like the incontinence hotline, either. Every time I call they say "Please hold".

Do you mean that you would delay paying or not be a member at all? I don't understand the former - if you always intend to re-join, why delay just because of a loss? If the latter, it just doesn't strike me as being something I would expect from someone as passionate as you obviously are. I understand the use of the word "donation", but to me being a member is irrelevant to winning and losing. Do I want us to win? Of course. But my membership is about belonging, not whether we are a winner or not.

Is he wearing any shorts?

Not sure we can allow your opinion to count. It's almost a post which should be deleted by the moderators on the grounds of offensive taste.

As a matter of interest, did the MRO make any comment on the incident? As a matter of course, I think the MRO (or someone working for him) should look at every incident which causes a concussion. There are two reasons to do so. One is that the AFL should be looking at all instances of concussion to see what happened and whether any changes are needed to game rules, umpiring, game style, instructions to clubs, etc to protect players. Secondly, if they looked at every incident, there would be no accusations of players being unfairly treated should some incidents be looked at and others not. In this instance, I would be in doubt that vandenBerg would be cleared of any wrongdoing.