La Dee-vina Comedia

The "Quiet Day For Lord" headline in the bottom right-hand corner is more evidence - if any were needed - that God is a Melbourne supporter.

I think you are correct. I believe conditional is a tense while subjunctive is a mood.

I haven't read this whole thread, but it's worth remembering that for the last 5 years (ie, 2020 to 2024) the competition had five different teams as Premier. Nevertheless, there is something fundamentally wrong with free agency if the free agents keep going to the teams at the top of the ladder rather than the other way around. It may not work out, but bravo to St Kilda for making themselves attractive enough to entice some quality free agents.

Not as good a name as Peter the Great, and marginally worse than Ivan the Terrible.

But you would have to expect his fingerprints are on this particular crime scene.

Incomparable. Closest I can get is to say a mix of Pendlebury (for his ability to make the game slow down around him), a gazelle and Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concerto.

I'm a Melbourne member and I'm very happy with the way we've arrived at Steven King as our coach. Also, if you've quoted him correctly, his English use is poor. It should be "If I were a Melbourne supporter..." as he's using the conditional subjunctive tense.

I agree with this. Also, the journos might have their noses out of joint because the story didn't leak.

I'm old, but not that old! I can remember football before the "out on the full" rule was introduced which preceded the "deliberate out of bounds rule". This comment really belongs in another thread, but I'll be disappointed if they change the "insufficient intent" rule next year. I think it's a terrible rule and should ultimately be abolished. But it doesn't have to be replaced with a "last kick/handpass out of bounds rule". It could be replaced with a quicker "throw the ball immediately back in" rule. This would eliminate the wait for the slow, lumbering, nominated ruckmen to arrive. Such a change would result in the need for teams to re-think their structures (one ruckman on the ground won't be enough). In short, I'd rather a comprehensive review of all the rules, but only after a review of what we want the game to look like. That would mean no rule changes for 2026, but significant changes in 2027, all introduced at once. And that would at least give teams the chance to think about how to prepare their playing lists.

With a King as coach and a CEO whose name in Italian and Spanish means "war", I'd like to think our coach's pre-game addresses will be like this, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he to-day that sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother..." or "Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more..." Both from Shakespeare's Henry V

I'm interested because we need to strengthen our back-of-house. Maybe the outsiders on the selection panel showed that they may have value beyond selecting the new coach.

Is Matty Whelan a full-time employee of the club?

It was always going to be this message. No-one is ever going to say, "We chose the second-best candidate and we're happy to make do." Realistically, every time a new coach is appointed, by definition, that person is the best choice at the time.

I voted "yes", but my answer may have been different in the unlikely event that a hypothetical new appointee happened to be coaching against his new team in a Preliminary or Grand Final

Is that because King's about a foot taller? Seriously, I'm pleased we've gone with an experienced assistant rather than a recycled senior coach. The last recycled coach who coached a team to a premiership at his second go having not succeeded first time round was Malcolm Blight at Adelaide. And that was in the last millennium. We'll never know (at least, I hope we won't because it would be a breach of confidentiality) but it would be very interesting to know what value the various members of the coaching selection panel brought to the process.

I agree. Nevertheless, I'm surprised we're not hearing about any Board challenges.

I wish they all still wore long socks on the playing field.

In addition, what message does it send to our new recruits who get given numbers in the 40s? We don't think you're going to make it, but prove us wrong?

Can't see why there's a problem naming a trophy as a "memorial" for someone who is still alive. After all, we regularly give life memberships to people who have already passed away.

I'd rather the push off/push down was unnecessary because umpires have paid a 50m penalty. It amazes me given the AFL's insistence on "speeding up the game" that it hasn't become the norm for 50m penalties to be paid for opponents hanging on or stopping players from getting up off the ground after a free kick or mark is awarded.

Hopefully lifetime membership is granted to Simon Goodwin. I appreciate he may not wish to attend, and it might be better to give him lifetime membership when he's ready, but it doesn't change my view - he deserves it.

Time to change the thread title to "Welcome to Demonland: Paul Guerra"?

I suspect there's a future where the AFL gets sued by a player who receives an off-the-ball push which results in an injury which subsequently impacts the victim's capacity to earn. For example, earlier this year Essendon's Nick Martin was unnecessarily pushed over the boundary line and tore his ACL either because he collided with the fence or twisted his knee while trying to avoid the collision. While I assume he'll continue to be paid under his current contract, if his injury restricts his capabilities and therefore the value of his next contract, an unnecessary act will have cost him money.

Ablett senior wasn't always a forward. Does anyone know whether he was an AA when he played midfield, or did he get all of his 8 AAs as a forward?

Hopefully, not his hairstyle.