La Dee-vina Comedia

Did Bartlett actually say this or was it a comment from whoever he was speaking with at SEN?

Presumably that might affect the sponsorship dollars we get from the NT Government. Nevertheless, I'm in favour of extricating ourselves if we can afford it. And presumably we wouldn't be doing this unless we thought we could.

You're being a bit tough on Viney given the numbers are for the season to date in which Viney has only played 4 games.

If the "ins" are only coming from Tyson, Stretch, Garlett and Petty, I can't see how Pedersen gets omitted. Structurally he'll still be needed. If Petty plays, I would expect one of the nominal defenders to miss (ie, one of Vince, Lewis, Salem, Hibberd, Jetta, J Smith). Of that group, I would suspect Vince is the most likely. Tyson, Garlett and Stretch would be putting pressure, I would have thought, on Spargo and Hannan. Nice words from Goody about Watts, too.

Maybe the AFL forgot to tell everyone that the system used actually involves a points formula where the last step in the process is to multiply the points by ladder position to get a final number.

Nice reporting and I'm impressed you didn't regress by inserting a Melbourne weather today and Frost pun in your report. Must have been tempting.

Just looking at that picture...is it Kane Cornes' or Matthew Lloyd's team? (Not that it matters.)

If I recall correctly, his son was truly a colossus.

While these changes look good on paper (so to speak) who helps out Gawn? I assume from what you've said that Frost replaces Vince and Garlett replaces Spargo. Tyson therefore is the "replacement" for Pedersen, but obviously not as the second ruckman.

No, but Stockholm Syndrome might explain why Carlton have got so many Friday night games.

Should definitely try to get de Goey just to see your second sentence come true.

Can't decide whether it's easier to classify players as good/not good than it is to decide whether they are rangas/not rangas.

"...understood to have beaten" isn't quite the same as confirmation, though. It may be true...and it may not. The writers (Peter Ryan and Jake Niall) have clearly hedged their bets with that language. If they were certain, they would have written it with less ambiguity, such as "He beat a field of internal candidates..."

What a delight* it was watching the Australia v France game with the camera always distant from the pitch so you could see the play unfolding. *I'm talking about the TV production, not the result.

Apologies. I misunderstood your post.

"Well played, number 5. Good mark, number 14. Man up, number 3."

It's not that short a break given they played on the Thursday.

Sorry if this has been covered elsewhere, but do we know for sure that any or all of the internal candidates applied for the position? I would be pleased if they had the confidence to do so, but equally, not disappointed if any of them believed they were not ready for the job yet.

That's a ridiculous proposition. He'll be 62 years old.

Matthews played in a different era when the way he played was not uncommon. There were outright thugs who couldn't play football (defamation laws prevent me from naming anyone, but I'll just leave John Greening's name here as someone on the receiving end), brilliant footballers who weren't at all thuggish (Robert Flower, for example) and many who were both. Matthews - who was both - got away with it because the game allowed it, or, at least, turned a blind eye to it. Whether Jack Watts could have made it in that era we'll never know. But I'm sure he would have found the game far more challenging than today's version.

He was also a Director of Pacific Star Network (owners of SEN) for a while. Pert's job is to make sure Goodwin has the resources he needs and a stable back of house, both things denied to every coach from Norm Smith to Mark Neeld. If you think it's just the coach's responsibility to help us win games you haven't really been paying attention.

I know Pert's not taking over as CEO until October. But is it possible he may commence with the club in another role (let's just call it deputy CEO for now) which allows a smooth transition? And for the media know-it-alls who claim that this isn't a "succession plan", that's just bog-ignorance. A "succession plan" doesn't mean it has to be an internal appointment. It just means the CEO leaves with a new CEO already selected to take over. The alternative is what happens when the CEO leaves not at a time of his choosing or when a replacement CEO hasn't been selected before the CEO actually leaves, neither of which apply in this instance.

I genuinely no nothing about why Pert left Collingwood, but I could see that the review that Collingwood undertook came to the conclusion that there needed to be a change at the top which could have meant the President or the CEO...and the President made sure it wasn't him. Pert had spent a long time at Collingwood, so it was probably the right move for both him and that club for him to move on. And Mick Malthouse has apparently today slammed the appointment of Gary Pert as our new CEO. In my opinion, that just confirms the club has made the right decision!

I find my level of interest in football overall diminishes when we have a bye. And I have zero interest in games on a Thursday (other than a Thursday night before a public holiday on a Friday). Is it just me?

And quite rightly, not one poster after this post has disagreed that Barassi and Flower have been our two best ever. But who is the club's third best player? Is there an obvious choice? Maybe Norm Smith? I'm interested in people's opinions here.