La Dee-vina Comedia

So I assume you're expecting us to upgrade pick 18 by trading out a player. Who might that player be?

I think if I wanted to create a list of "players who improved the most under Roos", Jetta would have to top the list. The more I think about it, the more extraordinary the change has been which reinforces my belief that the only thing worse than our drafting in the 5 years pre-Roos was our player development.

It's also a relief knowing such good hands belong to our key picks. The alternative view could be that with all the talent at their disposal at the time they wasted their opportunity because of the off-field issues and should have won more than one Premiership.

I initially read that as "sponsors". Talking of which, I noticed in Alan Richardson's press conference that Hankook Tyres now sponsors St Kilda. Does that mean we missed out or does it mean that our rates have risen and Hankook can't afford us? If it's the latter, it would suggest that we are now a more marketable club than St Kilda.

In a similar vein, when did we last have a percentage as high as 133.33%?

Hird working in the media is one thing. It doesn't equal AFL acceptance, though. I'll be far more interested in seeing whether he turns up at any AFL-organised events, such as the Brownlow Medal count or the Hall of Fame dinner. Actually, it's not really a question of "if", it's more a question of "when". At some time I'm confident that the AFL will want to put everything to do with Essendon 2012 behind them and part of that will be welcoming James Hird back to the so-called AFL family. And whenever that happens, it will be too soon for some. Cue Beelzebub and SWYL...

Who, exactly, are you referring to? It's all very confusing now with the mob, the Dons, etc.

I'm amused that discussion on this thread has significantly dried up since the possible involvement of Mick Gatto was floated. Amazing how everyone goes silent when he's considered to be near.

I think you may be under the misapprehension that the Herald Sun is a newspaper. It's actually an AFL paper. It is well known that it sells more papers when it has major AFL stories so mines that territory continuously. Essendon would have known that and used it to its advantage.

Having just read Mick Warner's story I am very dubious. I think its very dangerous to assume that the claims of the "disgruntled employees" are necessarily accurate. Essendon has apparently stated that the claims are false and have been reported to the Police. I'm not sure what the Police involvement is about although if the Essendon FC position is correct, perhaps it is to investigate whether the employees have made fraudulent claims to WorkSafe. If any part of their claims can be proven to be false it would then bring into question the rest of their statements, whether they are accurate or not. While this never-ending saga has conditioned us to believe that anything the club did is beyond imagination, just maybe what's being written about here did not actually happen. And who amongst ever thought the the AFL-linked John Elliott who would get into the most trouble would be this particular one?

There are enough fruitloops in the Senate to make everyone feel at home.

There is one significant difference, though. It seems that Australian sportspeople caught doping are presumed by most Australians to be innocent until proven guilty whereas non-Australian sportspeople caught doping are presumed by most Australians to be guilty until they can prove their innocence.

Of course, if he believes the products he took were harmless, he'd be better to settle quickly before the lack of harm becomes apparent. The longer he waits the more you might assume he does not have confidence in what he was given.

Is there a legal timeframe within which he must lodge any claim? Or could he choose to wait years to see what the consequences of the program may be on his longer-term health, including that of any children he may have? If there's no limit on the timeframe, we (and Essendon) could be waiting years for final closure.

I haven't heard the tape but I have read Mick Warner's story. Two things struck me: who recorded that meeting and why? (That's more interesting to me than who gave it to Mick Warner and why now) there appears to be no discussion amongst the four (Little, Hird, Thompson, Corcoran) that they needed to cop their right whack. Which means they were either all delusional or all convinced of the club's innocence I realise that Warner's story is based on a tape which may not include everything said. But I'm confident that if any of the four had said anything that was anywhere close to admitting guilt, that would have been the main story. So, are they all delusional? Can circumstances such as this lead four otherwise successful and determined individuals to become delusional?

I certainly agree with your last two lines.

I'm not sure whether they had the power to do that. As I understand it, each of the clubs (with the possible exception of Gold Coast and GWS) are companies or incorporated associations which means the decision-making and accountability rests with their boards of Directors. The AFL does not control what the individual clubs do but provides the clubs with a licence to participate in the AFL competition. The AFL could ultimately could take away a club's licence, but that can't be done without some form of due process. I suspect the "best" that the AFL could do under the circumstances is what they allegedly did...suggest that it be stopped.

Similar media avoidance strategy to Dank, but a more expensive method. All Dank could do was put his phone to his ear and pretend to be on a call.

If the conflict was disclosed as suggested by the article, I don't see any problems. If anything, the only party which might have acted questionably is ClubsNSW and then only if they deliberately ignored the conflict, by which I mean they didn't confirm arms length negotiations between Demetriou's company and CrownBet. I have to add, though, that the photo of AD amused me. I'm so used to seeing Stephen Dank on his phone whenever the media is present I wondered whether that was who was on the other end of the call.

No-one. I'm not a great fan of apportioning "blame" for honest mistakes. I doubt the recruiters deliberately stuffed up the pick; I suspect the coaches didn't want him to fail; and as Gysberts would have been a teenager when he was first drafted I can't see why anyone should blame a child who discovered after a reasonably short period of time that the rigours of an AFL career weren't for him.

I wonder whether we were doing enough (or any) assessment of the psychology of potential recruits in Prendergast's time. And do we do it now? If we're doing it now and not then and the reason we didn't do it then was a lack of resources, I might be prepared to cut Prendergast some slack.

He seems pretty explosive every time Carlton plays us! And Williams absolutely dominated clearances, probably more than Judd or Ablett. As an accumulator and expert distributor of the ball. Couldn't run out of sight on a dark night but had the best hands in the business. Possibly ever. Think of him as being like Sam Mitchell, but with dynamic hands rather than feet. He's the player that Oliver is most likely to emulate.

My first thought was, "nah, its worthless". Then I thought, what if it was made officially available for anyone to buy? What would someone pay? And I think you're right. Some rich, mad Essendon supporter might pay multi-thousands to have it. Which is the madness of elite sport - people will pay way more than they should for something that is actually worthless. Like a Melbourne membership in 2013.

One other matter to consider is that if each of Melbourne and GWS has one of these players injured and unable to play, we still have one on the ground and GWS does not. That's not a reason in itself to do the deal, but it shouldn't be ignored as one of the benefits.

I know it would only be hearsay, but hasn't someone previously posted that Robert Shaw thought Hunt was the best of the Brighton Grammar School bunch of that year?