Undeeterred

Bigger fish to fry than this I reckon.

I'd say they boil down to the same thing, stuie boy.

Disagree. You're being completely unrealistic about the ability of anybody to herd cats on an internet forum.

I've managed to sneak 1!

Yet you have made the same, bleating, whiny post about eight times when both the masses and the moderators have made their views on your ridiculous, naive thread fairly clear. Edit: Hadn't read the last page. Eighteen times.

Seriously, such drivel that you've been automatically put on ignore.

Gee, not sure. I mean, they did play in last year's grand final, so I think it is a fairly safe bet to label them as a contender.

Confucius strikes again.

I agree - you probably are the only one who has noticed something wrong! Better email Roosy and co and alert them.

Because, Rhino, he's a complete fcukwit masquerading as a journalist.

Yeah, although you can look at it that he was saying they were aiming for all three to be back by then, but the media message is slightly shifting each time we hear anything.

It could go either way - either they will be completely rudderless, or a pack of enthusiastic kids who have nothing to lose.

The article on AFL.com.au about Roos' successor had this buried at the bottom... Sounds a bit ominous - Dawes at least 4 weeks away from training, club has no idea about Hogan and 'day-to-day' tends to mean 'month-to-month' in my book. Interesting to keep a watch on how this pans out

Um, yes. Maybe it escaped your notice he was completely taking the [censored].

Olisik, I don't agree with you much, but you're definitely on to something here, although pushing it uphill against a tide of people who just don't get it.

Nothing you've said changes my original point in the slightest.

Amazing how many of you turn so quickly from frothing at the mouth, dying to see Hogan play to 'oh, we weren't really going to see him much this year anyway'. Seriously, just admit you're as [censored] off as the rest of us that he won't be running out in Round 1 and save us all this 'that's just footy' rubbish.

At risk of breaching the old rule about not arguing with fools, Watts is a very good pack mark up forward and an equally good floating backman. I did get it right. People call him a soft [censored] because he often looks like he is being lazy and doesn't lay a great tackle, which is a completely different issue.

Tell you what, if he is injured and has to wait 10 weeks for his first game, I wouldn't want to be the first little peanut half-back flanker holding the ball when he is within 5 metres... Might be some more broken bones...

This is an imbecilic comment. When was Dangerfield available and what evidence do you have to suggest we couldn't pay him $800k as well as Clark? In fact, as I put to Franky and now put to you: name me a single player in the last three years we've missed out on because we couldn't pay their asking price.

Are you joking? Watts has been doing that consistently, and well, for years and it is disingenous to suggest Watts won't take a pack mark.

No, I completely agree with the paying the memberships, club being in debt etc etc. That is an entirely separate issue. All I am saying is, we have to pay someone and who else, in the last three years, would you have thrown $800k at in preference? I'm totally not saying he has been value for money. But it isn't about all of us paying money into the club that's being squadered. We're not paying close to the salary cap as it is.

Why do you care? We have to pay someone the salary cap, we already don't pay the full amount and aren't anywhere near salary cap pressure, or anybody else wanting more money that we can't pay. Our only free agent, Chip, can be covered with the cap as is, and by the time our young players want a pile, these contracts will be gone. Just don't see what the big deal is. You win some, you lose some.

Surely, q u e e r is not censored...

Tell you what, if they lost that group for any length of time, they are absolutely stuffed.