Undeeterred

From a football perspective, it is absolutely spot on.

Changing your name doesn't mean it isn't boring when you post the same threads under the new one.

I opened this thread actually ready to type: 'IT'S CLARK'. Clearly, no need.

Think he was joking mate - that was a great training report, with heaps of detail!!

Does seem to be a popular choice, doesn't it!

I wouldn't worry too much WYL.They are stuffed, even worse than us, and it is just a matter of when. I think it's not too big a leap to say that if the TV rights deal didn't require 9 games, they'd be in line to be punished so severly that they'd go under.

Except that they sort of do!

Why does seemingly everybody have us taking defenders? Even with Bartram gone, I would have thought our number 1 priority was midfield depth. Then again, what would I know!

To be fair, with one or two dazzling exceptions, that is also a hell of a lot of spud.

Now you have confused me. I'm reading your post as 'he's skills wont get him far' and it doesn't make any sense! See now why spelling be important?

Zero credibility. Not one of those players will come within a bull's roar of doing the job they want Watts to do.

2013 Watts, Sylvia (UFA), Davey (RFA), Gysberts, Morton, Grimes, Taggert, Gawn, Martin, Tynan, Fitzpatrick, Nicholson, Evans, Rodan, Gillies 2012 OOC (in number order) Bartram, Bennell, Petterd, Cook, Jurrah, MacDonald, Jetta, Davis, Sellar Rookies (upgrade or delist) Lawrence ® Rookies (1 year option) Couch, Magner, Sheahan, Williams RFA Moloney UFA Green, Rivers, Bate, and Dunn. This is really interesting - assuming Davis goes, and Dunn, Sellar and MacDonald got 1 year, you'd have to think all 3 are on the block next year. Who else goes, apart from Davey? I can't see us wanting to get rid of any of the others, unless Rodan is a complete bust. On current numbers, you'd also have to think one of Jetta and Barty are in trouble this year. Oh well, maybe we won't have any draft picks anyway, so it won't matter...

Isn't Finklestein quite steeped in defamation law? Just putting it out there - had a feeling he heard quite a few media and defamation cases on the Fed Ct bench, but I could be wrong.

So what? I'd be boasting too, if I had the first 2 picks. That doesn't mean anything - unless the official said to the sponsor, 'We got that second one by deliberately losing games.' Everybody settle down!

Jeremy Howe. Superstar in the making. And Sylvia. Ready for his career best year (I know, I know).

Good on TMac and Nicho. Saw them having coffee at my local cafe a couple of weeks ago, with Jade Rawlings. Obviously these two boys are feeling good about things!

Boring. If that's the best she can do, good luck to her.

Why, why, why is nobody talking about Adelaide?? I am becoming more and more convinced that the AFL is leaking to Wilson, and that they are doing it because they want this to be the focus. They aren't going to hit us with anything major, and they want the Adelaide investigation to be going on in the background, not in the media.

It looks like a few of them are actually a bit smaller. Jones doesn't look as huge. And look at Grimes' and McKenzie's legs... Twigs!

No, the article says the club might come before an AFL commission meeting next month. That's entirely different. That could be as simple as an agenda item on a board paper. And in any event, choosing to establish a 'commission', even if it is to hear our 'defence', is different to being obliged to do so by some law or principle of natural justice.

Sorry, but I disagree. Natural justice is required in adminstrative (ie government) and criminal law. The AFL is a public company limited by guarantee, and the same rules apply to it as any other corporation. On what basis is the AFL bound to give anybody what is being called 'natural justice'? I'm happy to stand corrected if, for example, the licences granted to the clubs actually state this, but I don't think it is legally correct.

The club or the thread?

Actually, one more comment. It is RIDICULOUS that this story is the focus of the football news this week, being the same week in which Adelaide actually admitted blatant, flagrant cheating of very clear, certain rules. Conspiracy, anyone?

My final comment - why in 33 pages is there so much acceptance of the purported facts here? Just because it is reported, doesn't make it true. We are all raving about like mad chickens, on the assumption that was is being put around is in fact correct. Hold your horses, people.

Ie, we are not 'the accused'. They can investigate, make a finding, hand down a punishment and move on.