La Dee-vina Comedia

Caveat emptor. All trades, except Monfries, were made after the potential for suspensions if found guilty were known. While the Monfries trade was prior to the supplements program becoming public knowledge, it would be difficult to prove that Essendon allowed the trade to proceed with the knowledge that he may later be suspended. After all, they have always claimed that they thought they were doing nothing wrong.

Actually, the Lloyd view is complimentary. If Melksham is "depth" we must have a better team than I thought we had. I don't think there would be too many arguments here that he's a lot better as a depth player than Bail, McKenzie, Riley, or even Matt Jones and Terlich.

Thanks Barney.

Can someone please make clear what the penalty against Melksham means with respect to the following: is he allowed at the club's rooms (eg, gym) when the rest of the team or club officials are not there? is he allowed to see any of the club's officials (eg, physio, dietitian, etc) away from the club rooms? can he maintain fitness by playing in any other football competition other than the AFL or VFL? can he maintain fitness by playing any other non-football competition (eg, basketball) if he's good enough to do so? PS: And can Stuie, SWYL, C&B etc, take it outside and stop hijacking this thread.

Just a couple of thoughts on matters raised in this thread. The trade: I have always assumed our club recognised that Melksham came with risks but knew that the risk for Essendon of keeping him was greater due to their need to offload some of the 34. If that was correct, I also assumed that we got Melksham at a cheaper price (in trading terms) than he would otherwise have cost. Perhaps we would have also had to offer a player as well as the pick we gave up, or there might have been an exchange of picks as well, if he was a risk-free trade. Whether we agree it was value for money or not is not my point. Only that the club thought it was and that the discount was worth it. Payments during the suspension: If players cannot be paid during their suspension, does that just mean they can't get cash added to their bank accounts by the club during their suspension? Could not the clubs have already pre-paid a substantial component and agreed to hold over the rest for a future season, thereby not depositing any cash but nevertheless fulfilling the remuneration commitments made? This would be consistent with McLachlan's statement that their payments would be part of the 2016 TPP calculations, even if they are not physically being paid during the period of suspension.

I think there's some latent and probably unintentioned 'veil of negativity' in this post. How much pressure would there be if we were, say 9 wins, 3 losses and Collingwood was the reverse?

I think the club will benefit having Oliver on our list. Having looked at his skin, under OH&S legislation the AFL will have to give us more night games or risk a claim for serious sunburn.

I know it's (probably) a typo, but I'd like to think you've just created a new expression meaning "courage beyond his years"

Would have been much more fun if Demonland had posted "Please ignore previous post" instead of "test post. please disregard."

Did I find sarcasm when it wasn't intended? If that's the case, I apologise unreservedly to both you and Jack Watts.

If it makes you feel better, think of Scott Pendlebury.

So, what are the rules for a Category B Rookie? Does he need to be upgraded like any other rookie if he is to play? For the purpose of playing list numbers, does he take one of the rookie spots? How many years can he stay on the list as a Category B Rookie?

You've assumed that the Melksham deal is completely unrelated to the subsequent deals. For all we know, none of the subsequent deals, including those not involving Melbourne directly, may have happened without the Melksham deal happening when it did.

y

I also think our expectations are now higher. In recent seasons we traded in Michie, Riley and Frost (along with some better credentialed players such as Tyson, Vince,etc). I can't recall what we gave up for those three, but I seem to recall a level of satisfaction with those recruits before they even physically entered the doors of the club. I think Melksham has a track record above each of them.

How do you know "we rolled over"? Perhaps Essendon were asking for a second round draft pick and a player who we didn't want to part with. Maybe we stayed firm and they rolled over.

Personally, I think your lack of punctuation and incorrect spelling is worse. But that's just me.

I was trying to be discrete. I meant Carlton's most recent Senior Coach who was previously the senior coach at three other clubs and holds the record for most senior games coached.

Ideally, yes. But I'm suspicious that Carlton's most recently departed coach might have operated that way.

Nasher, is Demonland working properly? Looks like two posts have been merged into one here. I'm not sure whether CityDee wrote the the first bit which is highly critical and dismissive of Toumpas or whether he wrote the last half which takes an alternate view.

Given Essendon's propensity to fail to keep records and other such stuff there must be a real chance there'll be confusion in their paperwork we'll end up with Carlisle instead of Melksham.

I look forward to reading next season's training reports about our new training technique of crawling over broken glass. What could possibly go wrong?

I don't disagree regarding Martin. But the comment I was responding to was about "most of our players" not "all of our players", so I can be magnanimous in allowing you that one.

Not sure about "fire sale". Perhaps getting "nothing for most of our players" was what those players were worth at the time...and why Neeld moved them on. It constantly amazes me that people want to blame Neeld for everything.

Clearly my mind has moved early into the silly season. It took me so long to work out who 'hb' might be that I'd thought of a pencil before I finally realised you meant Harley Bennell...didn't you?