La Dee-vina Comedia

Should be an interesting meeting. However, I'm disappointed that your heading isn't actually what the AFL Commission is doing. At least, not specifically. I think the idea of developing a 10-year strategy plan is exactly what the Commission should be looking at. The first two items could be a part of that, although the future of broadcasting/streaming and future technologies needs to be a strategic matter which is more than just the new rights deal. Other significant topics which should be addressed in a 10-year strategy plan include: growth of the game, particularly in the northern states the rules of the game player health and welfare (including, but not just limited to concussion). This should include during and post-playing careers umpiring grass-roots footy, junior footy, women's footy inclusiveness, including indigenous, gay and disabled players and supporters governance at the Commission level stadium quality (infrastructure and service quality, including food and beverage, etc) international growth protection from competing codes and other recreational activities gambling (including sports betting and poker machines) game scheduling (which days? what times? etc) consumer costs, including ticketing, memberships, transport to/from games, food and drinks at grounds, etc I'm sure there's plenty more.

I think Dodoro has been reasonable at picking new talent. However, he doesn't seem to know how to manage the trade and list management components of the job. My suspicion is that Josh Mahoney and Dodoro may have a testy relationship which will see one of them leave as part of this upheaval.

You seem to have forgotten that Stephen Dank has promised to tell his story and clear everyone of any wrongdoing. Any day now... With the soft cap, how can Essendon have more money to offer than North? Surely if Clarkson takes more money himself from Essendon there would be less available for all other football requirements, including assistant coaches. It all seems very much like Melbourne after the 186 game. Headless chooks not knowing who to sack and the order in which to sack them.

Normally I think your posts are very insightful, but I reckon only one of these three make sense. Meatloaf sang that two out of three ain't bad. You should aspire to that standard.

6. Brayshaw 5. Melksham 4. Petty 3. Hunt 2. Salem 1. Gawn Any of the following could have been given the last vote: May, Oliver, Patracca and Viney

My completely untrained eye suggests that May might have a back problem. He seems not to have the flexibility to bend over comfortably which results in him fumbling when he tries to pick up a ground ball.

Sloppy headline on the SEN website today. I'm sure SEN would love it if every player in the competition were to be linked to a trade. It could be talked about endlessly. But the headline is not quite what it seems.

*Bump In case anyone's interested, this article just published puts a slightly different spin on "dynamic pricing". In essence, it argues that dynamic pricing isn't as much about maximising pricing as it is about providing those organisations who use it with the extra revenue that would otherwise go to scalpers. I understand the logic of that argument, but as the article also points out, it can lead to serious customer/fan blowbacks.

But Laurie is named as one of the four emergencies; Chandler is not. Anyway, it might all be moot. Kev Martin has started a training thread for today and is keeping an eye on Pickett. Kev has confirmed that Pickett is at training.

Good on you, Kev. I've just read the team selection thread which raises the possibility that Pickett may miss due to a knee concern. You know what we need you to look for...

If we stick by the mantra that players do not play their first ever game as the sub, there are only two legit choices for the sub this week. Of course, if an emergency does get a call-up, that could change. For example, if Pickett doesn't get up (see above, re a suggestion of a knee issue), perhaps Laurie will get to play his first game.

Having watched the last few games, I suspect our opponents have worked out that a significant key to stopping us is to stop ANB. He seems to be the one who is tagged more often than any other player. He's fumbling because he's under immense pressure even before he's got the ball. And then when he gets it, he has no time to dispose of it. (To his credit, he's absorbing an enormous physical punishing every game.) I don't know whether the solution is to move him, drop him or give him time to work through it.

I'm hoping it's a mental thing and when it really matters - that is, in September - the team will get back to playing at its best. It's not great, though, to be looking for "reasons" like this in an effort to justify our sub-standard performances.

Same. But unlike the past, the memories of that era no longer require me to pass through the five stages of grief before I can move on with the rest of my day.

I'd be happy with the headline tomorrow re-introducing another word from that era as in "Colliwobbles strike the Pies"

With respect to player movement stories during the season, where there's smoke there is usually the burning end of a player manager's cigarette.

Ponies? Is that meant to be Pies or am I unaware of what this might otherwise mean?

You can argue about the quality of their wins and who they have played, but one metric where they are ahead is winning form. Ten on the trot is better than what we've achieved in the same period.

New rule for this thread: Anyone who says Harmes should have been picked also has to say who should have been omitted to allow that to happen.

On the radio this morning I heard a replay of a journo saying "Tom Hawkins has run out of super-laxatives for his mate Joel Selwood". I assume, and I hope, she meant to say "superlatives". Mind you, this effort from one of our Members of Parliament might be the gold medallist of incorrect word use.

Sorry for your loss.

Essedon and Wimbleton

Do we have a view about whether it is correct to always avoid splitting infinitives? And what about the rule which says do not start sentences with conjunctions?

The link asks more questions than it answers. For example, who knew that "than" could be either a conjunction or a preposition?

Which is the most courageous decision? Picking one KPF or two? If one, is it more courageous to pick B Brown, Weideman or van Rooyen? If two, which combination?