Undeeterred

Stuie's not a kid, he's 36. Going on 14.

Did someone tell that bloke he's playing CHB next week?

We forget sometimes that the players are people too... When you're going to boo them, remember that a lot of them are 20odd year old kids having a crack. It is humiliating enough getting smashed every week, without being booed on national TV into the bargain. What on earth does that acheive except making them feel worse about it all?

Excellent point... I'm really just being melodramatic, but wow that was horrible.

I just don't care enough about football to bother any more. Time to get on with the other things in my life...

You mean some aren't feeling very chipper?

Good job, Captain Hindsight.

Sat next to him a cafe this morning and, because I've not seen him up close before, I was actually surprised at how slight he is. For someone that young and, really, that small, to be playing like that in a debut match puts most of the rest of the list to shame. In answer to the question, it is a positive that he is having a crack.

Not sure if serious.

Why would we risk Clark in a rebuilding season with nothing realistically on the line when a serious setback could finish his career? Madness.

And you're defining irony by other people's posts... I'd look closer to home mate.

Yeah, cos all of that is exactly what we got....Puh-lease.

That fine was ridiculous - resting those players was pure list management. The Spurs are one of the oldest teams in the league, and they had 4 games in 5 days. The bigger problem was that they rested their stars against Miami, which would be kind of like Collingwood resting Thomas, Swan, Pendlebury and Cloke on Anzac Day. It destroyed the TV revenue stream for that game. I'm not sure that was really tanking in its pure form.

I wouldn't.

Talking complete sense, as usual.

Mate, this is crazy talk. What is happening in the papers at the moment has absolutely nothing to do with how smoothly or otherwise the club is currently running. It is the outcome of events which happened years ago. In fact, to counter your argument, I'd say the way this has been handled by the club shows that it is running incredibly smoothly, compared to previous times.

Well, yes, but in some senses it doesn't matter where the article comes from. What matters is the editorial direction the paper is taking, and no matter who wrote this, if they weren't looking to push this view, they wouldn't publish it.

Sure, but do you reckon they would have published it while Caroline Wilson was on the attack? Not in a million years. The fact that they have published shows a complete U-turn, regardless of the perspective from which it was written. In fact, I think it comes across as very balanced and reasonable, given it was written by a supporter.

That article shows an ASTOUNDING about face by the Age. Someone's had a word to them, but not the AFL, because this makes the AFL look silly.

Ahhh, Jose, you're back... That's the spirit. Made me laugh out loud.

You've been all for us 'copping our whack' for ages!

Who needs a whole off season when it is Jose attacking you. You generally only need to wait a couple of days.

Two in one day, Jose. Finkelstein is a barrister. They are the ones in the wigs who go to Court. ABL are solicitors.

You probably shouldn't make statements like this if you are going to accuse other posters of making posts that are 'riddled with errors'.

Um, or being big enough to admit that there is a possibility you aren't right 100% of the time. Not that you'd recognise the difference, of course, given you are never wrong.