Undeeterred

Yep, you're absolutely right. I completely misunderstood the wording of that section and happy to be called on it.

This is not censorship and doesn't depend on the censor's view. It depends on the law.

It isn't a slippery slope at all. There is nothing in the law that says anybody has the right not to be offended. The law is that you can't vilify people. If the legislation changes, and 'community standards' or the 'community' don't like it, then vote for the party which wants to change it and if the majority of people agree with you, it will get changed. Exhibit 1 - recent attempts to change 18C. The community, democracy, whatever, flatly refused to accept a regression in those standards.

Why do you think the Senate was hostile? Gosh some of the guff on this thread is incredible.

It is pretty simple. The right to free speech is tempered by the prohibition on racial/religious vilification. Not that hard to grasp, really, and preventing people from spouting race hate doesn't impinge on free speech in the slightest. It just stops race hate.

Nasher! You've stopped the stream of comedy for two whole weeks. How on earth do we get our laughing fix now??

Not to be nit picky, but the right to free speech for political communications is not actually in the Constitution. It was 'discovered' by High Court judges in various cases before them.

Playing Devil's Advocate, if in fact we did pay out a portion of his 2015 contract, then in actual fact we probably are in a better financial position than we would have been. He would have been perfectly entitled to sit on his bum and pull down the $700k or whatever it is, so I can't see that there's an issue there. Loyalty, etc, completely different issue.

I don't know why you all keeping feeding WYL. All you get is whiny revisionism and a complete refusal to show us how insightful he is by making forward predictions that we can call him on later. Complete waste of energy.

You'll have to sift through 2,500 posts to find out...

Come on people surely we can knock this up to a hundred pages!

Roos knows he is gone and I bet they have had an idea this might happen for a while. So, they go to the league to put the PP out there, then this comes along a couple of weeks later. If he walks, we wouldn't have got anything for him but the AFL can't possibly deny us 2, 3 and 4 now. Would be a travesty not to get a PP anyway, let alone if Clark goes somewhere else. To be honest, not sure Roos really cares. He knows that at least one of those picks can be turned into an established player who might not have as much upside as Clark but sure as hell doesn't have any of the risk.

Hawthorn??? You would have to be absolutely [censored] kidding me.

Ahhh, fair enough. Still, that kind of stuff is always going to happen, no? We all appreciate your efforts, as you know!

Love your work Nasher, but running a football forum then asking why someone would post inside info on it is a bit confusing in itself. Why exactly are you running Demonland if not for people to discuss things like this, whether fact or fiction?

Situation summed up perfectly. Close thread!

Fair cop. I'd chuck him in a bucket with everybody else we thought we could land and take the best ones. Maybe we agree after all.

On what basis? I completely agree. Love Crossy, but he did get bumped by a team with heaps of young mids coming through. Ours can't keep him out of the team, let alone out of the top 5 in the B&F.

Chapman coming up against Geelong next week could also be pretty interesting, I'd wager.

They've definitely lost that aura though. Just saying if I were Frawley looking to pick a side to win a flag with in the next few years, it wouldn't be them.

Nup. He always makes sense and is wildly enteraining a lot of the time. Can just be a little off the mark sometimes, that's all.

Not sure I'd want to be Frawley going to Geelong, to be honest. Although very wary of calling it early, I think they're just about on their last legs for this cycle and he ain't going to be enough to hold them up.

Yeah I haven't seen him for a while, so he didn't spring to mind. There are a couple of others in the running, of course.

You probably make the least sense out of any person on this forum and, by God, that is saying something.

Of course I get it - we just disagree on how to get there. We should definitely be going after pretty much anybody who improves us and is willing to come. I didn't say you made the draftees point, but you'll also notice I didn't put any quote marks in. What I'm saying is that we can either pick up a whole lot more young kids and lose Frawley this year, thereby reducing our list age even more, or go after players of a similar age who are ready to go and make an immediate improvement. I can guarantee that the only thing that will mean a quicker death for this club than being mid-table and winning a few more games is being on the bottom, waiting for the tide to turn with speculative draft picks. We will get the Tysons and Hogans as well - it isn't as if they are going to give up picks 2 and 3 for a player like Heritier.