La Dee-vina Comedia

I understand why you say WTF, but why the exclamation marks? Women's Terrific Footy is a great name without the unnecessary punctuation.

Actually, I think there's nuance to this issue that needs considering. Is AFL (1) the name of the organisation which has Gil as its CEO and that runs all football, including men's, women's and children's competitions? (2) the type of football played which used to be known as Australian Rules Football? (3) The competition played by men? Given the correct answer is "all of the above", I think there is a problem about what 'AFL' means. Personally, I'd be happy with the administrative body being called 'AFL', the game being called 'Australian Rules Football' and the men's competition being AFLM, just as the women's is AFLW.

I'll take other's word for Petracca's body shape having changed, but before we laud Burgess and demonise Misson, maybe the bulk (unintended pun) of the scrutiny might be better placed with Petracca himself.

Or vice versa, depending on what we want to achieve with each game.

True. And, of course, many of these players may have been "half-European" on their mother's side.

I guess that's one way to deal with his ball drop problem. Just not the way I expected.

And Joe Rugolo, too.

I'm surpised that there were apparently only 49 players on the list. I thought lists numbering in the 40s was a more modern trend. Even more surprising is the number of names I don't recognise. Who was Wayne Barclay, Peter McCarty, Dale Lawrence, Peter Ryan, Cameron Smith, etc? The other perhaps less surprising matter is the heavy weighting towards Anglo-Irish names. I haven't compared it with today's list, but I suspect these days it's a much more diverse group with Italians (Petracca), indigenous players (Jetta and others) and other European backgrounds (Kolodjashnij, Fristch, Vandenberg, etc).

1. Barassi 2. Flower Big, big gap 3. Maybe Norm Smith? To be fair to anybody who played before the 1970s, I only have a vague memory of those who played in the second half of the 60s and really have to guess on the capabilities of anyone I didn't see. If it's players I have seen (at their prime, so that excludes Barassi), it is Flower by the length of the Flemington Straight, then probably a toss up between Neitz, Stynes and Lyon. (Max Gawn and Clayton Oliver may surpass all three by the time their careers conclude.)

I would be disappointed if they didn't. It's their job to monitor all forms of media

I wonder if this policy applies for the season proper, particularly for any game that might be played in, say, China.

Was Josh Mahoney sitting on Max's knee when he made this statement?

In the 1960s, the competition wasn't professional so (in real terms) player payments were substantially less. Ground facilities were much poorer, too, with most grounds having very little seating. On balance, I suspect the value for money proposition (again, in real terms) is today substantially better than it was in the 1960s. I also suspect (but would be happy to be proved wrong if the evidence is there) that the proportion of wages spent on attending football was less in the 1960s than it is today. What might make football seem to be relatively expensive is that society today has many more expenses overall so paying for attending football appears to be more painful. Or, to be more pithy and as the late Terry Jones might have said in an appropriate voice, "Luxury".

How did May get us Bennell?

I like to think that Bennell's leg problems are entirely the fault of being contracted to two basket-case clubs. I suspect that's not actually the case, but thinking that gives me optimism that with proper care, he can be made into a successful player for us.

If his contract were back-end loaded, I could understand that he may have accrued payments that need to be paid out at the conclusion of his time as a player, whether it occurs at the expected end of the contract or earlier.

Is it? Has anyone seen any analysis which compares the cost of going to the footy today compared with previous eras in real terms? I'd be surprised if "going to the footy" is materially more expensive. However, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the additional costs (food and beverage, primarily) are more expensive, but in my view, they are avoidable costs.

We had a power base?

I'm not sure what Saty, Baghdad and George will be more offended by...that they could ever be considered to be like Joffa or, by inference, with each other? I know I'd never be considered to be like any of them. I haven't got Saty's hair, I'm the wrong religion to be allowed anywhere near Baghdad and I don't sit in the outer. And as for Joffa? Well, I've got all my own teeth.

If we have a planning expert on Demonland perhaps we could get some definitive advice, but while the Council might impose this requirement, would it necessarily be binding? Couldn't the body seeking to build (such as the Yarra Park Trust, or whatever its called or the MFC or RFC) appeal such a decision to VCAT? Couldn't the Planning Minister intervene (for or against, of course)?

You've just upped my level of expectation. Now anything less than a Shaun Burgoyne standard is going to feel like a disappoining result! Seriously, I'm pleased for Bennell and can't see any downside. I'm confident that the risk of him not making it is no worse than any other player available to take at this time.

Even if your enthusiasm is more constrained this year, I hope you've still bought memberships for yourself, your two sons and lovely lady.

"And we're going to make Collingwood pay for it"

Just to clarify, are you proposing taking May out of the defence permanently or just moving him forward should a need arise?

That could be problematic. Imagine (and it takes some imagining!) if Melbourne play Richmond in a Grand Final. That would mean the following year we would play them in or around the last week in March for Round 1 and then about 4 weeks later on ANZAC Eve. (Or, we lose the ANZAC Eve slot.) I'm not fussed about Richmond v Carlton playing in Round 1. Each time the AFL locks in a blockbuster game it reinforces the need for our club to develop our own blockbuster ideas. So I will repeat what I've been saying for years. We should make Melbourne v Sydney, representing the two biggest cities in the nation, a blockbuster game which involves the Lords Mayor of each city. It should rotate between Melbourne and Sydney every year and it could, if managed right, repliace State of Origin footy in the mind of supporters, both those who support Melbourne and Sydney (the clubs) as well as those who support other teams.