La Dee-vina Comedia

I agree. And if there wasn't a game each week in NSW and Qld there would be less TV rights money to go round. It would be interesting to know, but probably impossible to accurately ascertain, whether the increased money from having a game each week in NSW and Qld fully covers the losses of the two new clubs.

I can't read the article as I'm not a subscriber, but the financial payment doesn't surprise me or trouble me. The AFL would have known the GWS and GCS projects would cost money and wouldn't have proceeded unless it was prepared to back them for a long time. Nevertheless, the AFL probably didn't expect GCS to perform on field so poorly which will have exacerbated the problem. Truth be told, the AFL providing financial backing to original clubs based in the AFL's heartland should be a bigger concern.

I'm not sure if we need a rule. Karma usually seems to work pretty well, especially given the cameras pretty much pick up everything and players are sanctimoniously and hypocritically criticised by the media for such behaviour.

Isn't there some suggestion that Collingwood is considering relocating to a whizz-bang new facility at Victoria Park?

I don't think runners are necessary but if the role is abolished, I have no doubt this is what would happen. Or perhaps restrict the number of times per match or per quarter (or both) they are allowed onto the ground and the amount of time they are allowed per on-field foray.

I'm curious. Why would we be shorter odds to be Premier than Top of Ladder? I'm trying to work out the mathematical logic. Someone who's a punter might be able to explain. Surely it's harder to be Premier? Maybe it's as simple as there being more money for us as Premier (relative to other teams) than there is for us to be on top of the ladder.

Interesting. Made me have a quick look at Zurich's sponsorships. While I haven't found a list I came across this story which claims that Zurich's US division was one of the 122 biggest sponsors in the US in 2015. It's in the group within that 122 which spends the least (US$15-20 million per annum), and being alphabetical, you have to scroll right to the end to find their name, but I draw comfort from them at least being considered to be a "big sponsor". Reiterates that it's a great get for us.

Here's a start. Call it e-sliced bread. Sure fire winner.

How can you tell? I'm never sure if he's off-topic or obtuse or whether it's just me.

They don't have to change the plan if the coaches decide the net result of an occasional mismatch is worth the cost. In other words, if the zone defence is overall a better strategy than the alternative, then it's a cost we have to live with.

Glass half full. He will give his all, as always, but last year when we got caught out with the zone-style defence so that Jetta ended up as the sole defender on a tall forward, it wasn't usually a success.

Such a great photo, Satyr. But it looks like you've been tied up with some rope. If nothing else, if anyone wants to label all Melbourne supporters as conservative, Range Rover driver-types, we can just show this photo of you as Exhibit A.

You can add to Lever and Lewis the recruitment of Melksham and Hibberd, too. Not because they were both superstars, but because they chose us and not as a last resort.

I really hope Melbourne Storm aren't training tomorrow. Demonland will go into meltdown.

I'm not a moderator of this site so I can't tell you what you can and can't say and do. Demonland has rules you can read. But my opinion is that online personal criticism, particularly when it's anonymous, on any forum is always unnecessary, cowardly and disrespectful of both posters and readers.

Because that's the point. The criticism of Satyr and Joeboy is never deserved. Disagreement with their views is OK, but not criticism of them personally.

1. No criticisms of Satyr for his training reports 2. No criticisms of Joeboy for his weekly three word player summaries 3. No criticisms of Melbourne players unless genuinely deserved.

From the sublime to the ridiculous. One of the great things about AFL is that all sorts can play at the top level. Tall or short; fast or slow (though, not too slow); academically gifted or not; silver spoon upbringing or from the school of hard knocks; and serene or as mad as a cut snake. All of us who watched Flower and Mark Jackson know who was serene and who was the cut snake.

The official photos released yesterday showing the clash jumpers show that IG is still the shorts sponsor, sharing with the apparel supplier, New Balance.

It's hard to imagine any number other than #2 being affixed to an original royal blue era jumper. If anyone out there had a different number it would be interesting to know which one and why. As to the new clash jumper, why has it taken a decade or so to work out that a royal blue jumper could actually work as a clash jumper? It looks good, doesn't antagonise the fans and adds a nostalgic element.

Just some helpful advice to Nasher and Demonland. Kurt Tippett has today announced his retirement. Be prepared for a Demonland meltdown if the AFL allows Sydney to replace him on their list.

I'm imagining someone in the MCC who's not aware of the trade and will be shocked to find that Jack Watts has tatts.

Don't confuse the decision to sponsor with the price being paid to sponsor. Zurich may have agreed to sponsor but ended up being able to pay less to do so because the metrics used (number of FTA games, etc) might have lowered the price. It's even possible that the only reason Zurich agreed to sponsor was because the price was lowered because of those same metrics. (I'm not, by the way, suggesting we should lose more games to get more sponsors. All I'm saying is that decisions like these are sometimes more complex than they might seem.)

Helps explain why we recruited Spargo.

And more alliterative.