La Dee-vina Comedia

Cunning plan, RR! The poll is a bit like the one News Ltd asked recently about who was the best of Australia's last five Prime Minister's (Hawke, Keating, Howard, Rudd, Gillard). Beautifully structured to split the Labor vote! RR has got three options which 'support' Demetriou and one to consolidate all the votes to shaft him. Brilliant strategy. RR should be working for the Herald Sun. I'd add a smily emoticon if I knew how.

I don't particularly like or dislike Andrew Demetriou but I think he's presided over a pretty successful period for the AFL. Certainly there are some issues of concern, but I reckon when compared with the NRL and FFA, the AFL has been managed extraordinarily well. I used to wonder how David Gallop got out of bed each day when he was CEO of the NRL - that was a much harder gig. And lets keep in mind that our club still exists and according to reports of our AGM last night, we're in a pretty good financial position. Demetriou has consistently wanted to maintain the core clubs in the AFL even while expanding the competition and has managed a complex financial equalisation program (although some clubs are still more equal than others). Is it time for him to go? Personally, I think he's earned the right to go at a time of his choosing. Disclosure: In a previous role I had to deal with Demetriou. I found him, er, difficult. But he was only doing what he thought was the best for the AFL.

I wonder how they calculate the conversion rate of supporters to members. That is, how do they know how many supporters there actually are? And I recall hearing David Smorgon once make the same claim for the Bulldogs. (Both could be correct, of course. Smorgon made that claim in around 2007.)

In fact, if it wasn't for BT's obsession, I'd have no idea who the "Weapon" is. Or that apparently there's a "football factory" in Geelong...

Maths doesn't seem to be our strong point on Demonland. Eight quarters? Seventeen quarters?

Surely we could get good half dozen years from Dustin Fletcher.

A question for those that go to training (I can't get there and I appreciate all the information our watchers provide). When the team is practising "a full ground drill running with what looked like our first choice backline", who plays on those defenders? The "first choice forward line"? Or are players switching all the time so you can't really tell. I would have thought for the backline to be under the most pressure when practising, the best forwards should be opposed to them. Conversely, using the example given above, does this mean Fitzpatrick was playing full forward on, say, Troy Davis?

At the risk of re-igniting debate, is there any confirmed evidence that Adrian Anderson, in his role as acting CEO, commenced the investigation without first discussing the matter with Andrew Demetriou? A number of posters have suggested that Anderson proceeded without Demetriou's knowledge and subsequently found his employment terminated because of it. This may be true, but if so, can someone point me to a place where hard evidence exists to support this view? If it's not a fact, or at least not confirmed as a fact, perhaps we are doing Adrian Anderson a disservice. Yes, he might have suggested the idea of an investigation. But if he didn't and Demetriou actually instructed Anderson to proceed, the buck stops with the CEO. Does anyone actually know?

If we keep this up, we might be able to put together a pretty good team made up of rejected full backs.

And James Hird famously played on Gary Ablett Sr. Failed and I believe never played full back again.

Thanks BB, great report. I'm interested in this comment about Clark and Trengove: "They then did some handball drills and some short gentle kicking over about 20m with their non injured foot" I would have thought the foot which stays on the ground during a kick would take the most stress. Perhaps I'm wrong. But if they're kicking with their non-injured foot, I would think that the injured foot must be doing OK.

Mind you, many players can play so many positions, it's impossible to know what their "true" position is. What is the "true" position for Adam Goodes, Jared Brennan or Brendan Goddard? Who (before it happened) would have thought Matthew Pavlich could play on ball? Or Jobe Watson? Or for our own team, what's the "true" position for Lynden Dunn or Colin Sylvia? Experimentation is a wonderful opportunity to find out what your players can and can't do. Given Paul Johnson had been tried as a key forward and as a ruckman and hadn't nailed either, primarily because he couldn't take a contested mark, trying him in the backline on a running player makes perfect sense. In the end, it didn't work and he's no longer an AFL footballer. But I'm glad we tried him in a few positions first. Mobile 200cm players are had to find. reason for edit: spelling

Should be called 'ninja turtle suits'. I presume they were padding to provide protection from corks, etc. But I'm just guessing. If someone actually knows, it would be nice to know for sure.

I would assume that drugs which are banned, even what you have called "recovery drugs" must have been banned for a reason. It's impossible to ban sports betting, so having a properly regulated sports betting industry attempts to cover off all the issues you have raised. Victoria has very progressive legislation in this regard (which would be enhanced by legislation to make cheating at sport for the purpose of financial gain a criminal offence). The best example I can think of of gangsters manipulating matches is Arnold Rotstein and the Chicago White Sox nearly 100 years ago in the days when sports betting was illegal...yet it still happened. We're much better off with a regulated system.

Completely disagree that "Drugs makes sport better". I'm not even sure I can understand any argument that states otherwise. Unregulated gambling can ruin sport, but a properly regulated system can work fine. Gambling can, however, ruin lives and people with gambling - or drug - problems need help.

I think naming players may be defamatory. I'm happy for the ramifications of the article to be discussed but we shouldn't be naming anyone. And I think Mick's problems might start with his home life. His Dad's attitude to alcohol seems completely off the mark.

People often assume great photos come from great cameras. Actually, they come from talented photographers such a Six6Six. Well done. And Jack Watts has really bulked up in the upper arms (although I'd like, also, to see a bigger chest...hopefully that will follow). And Aaron Davey seems to have returned to the hairstyle of his earlier days. Let's hope his football follows.

As I've posted before, I think the concern about 18 teams playing 22 rounds (that is, the issue of some teams playing each other twice and others once) is a bit over-stated. The best teams will always end up in the top 6 spots on the ladder. The fight for 7th to, say 12th, will always happen and perhaps the teams that get into 7th or 8th might have a softer draw than the teams 9th to 12th - but so what? Teams 7 and 8 aren't realistically going to challenge for the flag anyway. The evidence shows that almost always the premier comes from teams finishing 1st to 4th - and usually, 1st or 2nd. For them to get there they must have beaten a mix of good and bad teams. Of greater concern to me is the inequality of the draw in terms of commercial benefit rather than position on the ladder. We shouldn't play home games at Etihad and all teams should have a better distribution across premium times. However, a lot of that is within our control. If we play better, we'll be rewarded. And I'll support Jose - I think the AFL does a pretty good job overall at developing the fixture, even though it isn't perfect.

Dunn looks soiled? Like a brick outhouse, perhaps?

Maybe we need this lawyer

I fear you might be correct. But "inconclusive and insufficient evidence" doesn't really kill the issue. It just leaves an opening for "new evidence" to be provided sometime in the future...and the investigation can start all over again. Which makes me think...would we be better off with a "no case to answer" and therefore no forwarding of the matter to the Commission for its consideration or for the matter to be considered by the Commission and finally and conclusively put to rest in our favour (assuming the Commission forms that view)? If I were a Director of the MFC and absolutely certain that we did not tank, it might be better to take the latter option.

Looking again at the question asked, it could still be Brock. Just not with us.

And Jack Watts will still be blamed for something.

But also a source of mis-information. It's the mixture of gold and the dross that makes social media both exhilirating and exasperating.

The Melbourne FC is the licensed operator of both venues. Both have liquor licences and both have poker machines. In fact, you can only have poker machines in venues licensed to serve liquor. Look here at the VCGLR website.