La Dee-vina Comedia

Yarra Park Reserve is created through its own Act, called the Melbourne (Yarra Park) Land Act 1980. Because it's a 1980 Act it may as well have been written in Old English (which is my way of saying that it is harder to interpret for a non-lawyer like me than a modern piece of legislation). Within that Act, though, is the following provision: 22 Punt Road Oval Agreement (1) Nothing in the amendments made to this Act by the 2009 Act is to be taken as having the effect of— (a) making the Trust a party to the Punt Road Oval Agreement; or (b) giving rise to any duty of the Trust or liability or other obligation on the Trust arising out of the Punt Road Oval Agreement. (2) In this section, the Punt Road Oval Agreement means the Funding Agreement for the Redevelopment of Training, Administrative and Community Facilities at Punt Road Oval entered into between the State of Victoria, the Melbourne City Council, the Richmond Football Club, ABN 25 679 793 340, and the Australian Football League, ACN 004 155 211 on 29 June 2009 in respect of the land described in the Schedule. The Schedule has a rather crude drawing of a roughly circular plot of land with Punt Road drawn on its right and Brunton Avenue below it which would seem to match with what we would expect would be the Punt Road Oval. So, I think that means the Punt Road Oval is within the Yarra Park Reserve but is managed by a separate arrangement allowed for by the legislation. [PS: If there are any planning or land-use lawyers out there, feel free to correct any misconceptions I may have about this.]

Good question. Something else for me to research!

I was curious about the origin of the surname Sylvia so looked it up. It's apparently Old English but most interestingly (and pleasing) was that Colin is named in the article as one of the "Contemporary Notables of the Name Sylvia (post 1700)".

While I can see the resemblance between Nick Reiwoldt and the animal (an alpaca?) I can also see where Sam McClure got the inspiration for his hairstyle. (Sam, if you're reading this, it's time you grew up and got a proper adult's haircut).

I agree that Carlton would have been happy the first couple of years. But they shouldn't have been. Having Judd just papered over serious cracks and gave a short-term sugar hit. Not Judd's fault but Carlton were naive if they thought one superstar player is all that is necessary to be a success.

Seeing as you asked, I've had a look at the enabling legislation. I've summarised it so as to explain the relationships. This is a longish read but it may be of interest to some: Summary of the Melbourne Cricket Ground’s management and control arrangements Excerpt from the Preamble to the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 2009: “By an Order in Council dated 9 December 1861 land known as the Melbourne Cricket Ground was permanently reserved as a metropolitan cricket ground. By a Crown grant dated 17 June 1862 the Melbourne Cricket Ground was granted to the trustees of the Melbourne Cricket Ground upon trust that the Ground and the buildings on it be maintained and used as and for a place for playing cricket and for related conveniences. … Under the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1933…Land described in the Fifth Schedule to that Act and known as the ground was granted to the trustees of the Melbourne Cricket Ground upon trust that the Ground be maintained and used as and for a place for playing at cricket and for conveniences connected therewith and when not required for cricket for such other purposes not inconsistent with the foregoing as the trustees think fit and for no other purpose whatsoever.” In 2009 the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1933 was replaced with an updated law not surprisingly called the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 2009. Key features of the new Act (for the purposes of this discussion): · The law establishes the Melbourne Cricket Ground Trust which is given responsibility to “manage, control and make improvements to” the MCG and surrounding land and to be the committee of management for the Yarra Park Reserve (hereafter just called Yarra Park) · The Melbourne Cricket Club “is entitled to occupy the Ground to the extent and in the manner enjoyed by it at the commencement of the Melbourne Cricket Ground Act 1933” subject to certain conditions (such as not changing its constitution without the consent of the Trust and that it doesn’t persistently breach the Trust’s regulations, etc) · The Trust can call for tenders for the management of the whole of a part of the MCG · Notwithstanding the previous point, the Trust may appoint the Melbourne Cricket Club as Ground manager and while the MCC is Ground manager, the Trust can’t enter into a contract with anyone else to manage the Ground · While the MCC is the Ground manager, it receives and retains all entrance fees and revenues arising in the course of its management of the Ground (presumably this includes ground advertising). The agreement it has with the Trust to be Ground manager (see previous point) may mean that the MCC shares this revenue with the Trust · The Trust can delegate to the MCC any function or power that relates to the management, control, improvement or use of the Ground or to the Trust’s role as committee of management for Yarra Park; · similarly, the MCC, with the approval of the Trust, can delegate to any person (which presumably would include the Melbourne Football Club) any function or power which relates to the use of the ground or Yarra Park (this may be handy should the new facilities mooted for Yarra Park ever be built).

What happens on Friday 9 November which warrants there being two separate free agency periods on either side of that date? Can anyone explain what the difference is between free agency period (1) and free agency period (2)? I can understand free agency period (3), because it's held immediately after the draft and allows teams to fill any remaining spots with delisted free agents, although why they just don't draft them the day before I don't understand. Perhaps it's something to do with negotiating player-specific contracts.

Aren't we also a tenant? My recollection is that the ground is "owned" by the State which has put a trust in place to be the ground manager with the MCC the major tenant.

Maybe someone can answer this without Demonland asking him, but does Mahoney personally negotiate and agree to trades? Given he's given praise and criticism on this site for our trading, I want to be sure he's the correct recipient of those opinions.

I can imagine he was very good at collecting drinks for everyone but when he went to pass it to you, did it miss you by some distance?

Agree, if you mean great players don't always make great coaches. Some great players have been outstanding coaches, such as Ron Barassi and Leigh Matthews.

Just out of curiosity, I've looked at other coaching records to see how Neeld compares. It is interesting that of all coaches to have coached 33 or more games (33 being the number coached by Neeld), four have a worse record, measured as percentage of games won. More interestingly, three of them were unquestionably great players - Royce Hart, Brian Dixon and Kevin Murray. The fourth is Allan Hird Senior.

Hemingway writing in the style of Shakespeare, rhyming couplets and all.

I would suggest that the synergy of linking Hames with Harmes should be a marketing opportunity made in heaven. Would it be appropriate to ask contestants at the quarter time break to do something with their r's?

I would have been impressed but (unless there are two players with the same name) you've got Mitch Maguire going to the Suns at pick 80 (in a previous post) and the Giants at 89.

Doesn't it take more skill to get a free agent, who can choose any team, than to trade for a player?

I'm already desperate for some footy. But I'm not that desperate. Having said that, I think there is a future for the AFLX concept, but just not with AFL present-day players. I can see it being a useful product to offer in non-AFL markets where finding appropriate oval grounds can be problematic. It's sort of like an Auskick for adults.

You make some fair points. I guess we don't really know what they tried to do during the trade period and how much their hands were tied by salary cap pressure. (I presume some of the player off-loading was related to their salary cap.) Of course, if their hands are tied, they managed to do that to themselves.

I think getting Lynch, surely the best player available under free agency this year, is a significant boost to Richmond. They only had one legitimate tall forward, a very good one, but also one who is about 30 years old. They needed to boost this area immediately and have done so. I can see why Wallace gave them an A, but I can also see that if Richmond don't win another Premiership in the next two years they could be headed for a long period of pain. It's a calculated move and if I were managing Richmond's list it is exactly what I would have done.

Other way round. It's the best time to rate trading. There's no accountability and no way anyone can argue with you due to a lack of any quantifiable metrics. You can stick your neck right out with no fear of it being chopped off.

This is an important part of the investment equation which some seem to not understand. While we had good value from Hogan as a player we also extracted value from him as a trade. There's no way we would have got May and Kolodjashnij without having had Hogan to trade. I know it's commoditizing players to describe them this way, but Hogan was a valuable asset both as a player and as trade currency. In other words, his value to the club extends beyond the years he played with us.

Mind you, we were cheating in Round 1 this year by apparently starting with five on the bench. That automatically makes us 4.34% better.

Well done, Jack T. Two other things in that AFL article caught my eye: Dom Barry was delisted on Monday and Jimmy Toumpas has earlier been delisted. Port's ex-Melbourne contingent has thus halved Port may have 5 ruckmen on their list (it might still be reduced to 4). While I appreciate one is only a 19 year old recovering from an ACL, that's still a lot of ruckmen to be carrying

I'm not having a got at you my dear Watson, but saying we lost 47 goals assumes that if Hogan hadn't played in those games where he kicked those 47 goals, his replacement would not have kicked any either. That's highly unlikely. It's not possible to know what that number might have been, but it's certainly not going to be as high as 47.

Is someone trying to equate him with the Eureka Tower? The red stripe on the side of his top = the red bit on the building (supposedly a candle wick, apparently), the rest of the blue on the jumper equates to the majority of the glass and the yellow glass at the top of the building equals his noggin.