BarrassHarrass

Martin looks like tarazan and plays like jane..well actually more like Andrew Bogut. he is not a natural footballer. He is tall and built but doesn't use it and can't hold a grab to save himself. He has been given his chances and unfortunately fits in to the melbourne category of 'i like the idea of being a football but.....'. Seasons like this throw up opportunities...its time to stop baby-ing these 'kids'. he may be skinny but will only learn in time, but cook, in the absence of clark deserves the call up. i saw his game for casey last weekend and i think he will show a bit if given the opportunity.

not sure if its been suggested previously, but I reckon we should all make a visit to the candy store and grab bags of those chocolate gold coins and hurl them down the race as he runs out. That way fat phil can be fed after. We can watch the fat [censored] pick them up one by one...

for those that dont have the paper or access to their online content, could you enlighten as what the article was about WYL?

Yes, although innocent is not the word I would use. More like they dont have enough evidence to make the serious charges stick.

The fact that the cops have slapped on further charges is not a good sign for Liam at all. As a lawyer who works in Crim law, I see this as a sign that the cops and the DPP are looking to slap him with a sentence. Typically the way this will play out is that when he pleads he may pead not guilty to the serious charges and they will still get him on one of the 'lesser' charges. This ploy is also used to avoid a situation where the accused pleads guilty to one charge in the hope he gets a suspended sentence or similiar. Darn it. Looks as though he will get some time for this attack. Having said that, I have no experience with NT Laws and/or how their prosecutor's operate. Only speaking from Victorian experience.

Someone posted this on BF the other day, I think it looks much better than what we are running with atm. However, given the time we have had to get the sponsors on the jumper, I would not be surprised if this comes off. It looks 100% better. I would say the red slab logo would be a temporary job.

I think the 'desire' indicator is to look at the palyers and observe how many come in to pat their 'mate' on the back after a good piece of play. I have taken a keen interest in player body language after I was given information about the friendship divide amongst the players at the club. I don't want to elaborate on that because some dull journo like Hutchy will troll this site and look for a story. But to me, the problem seems to be that this group of players are no all for one and one for all. Its a mix of players thrown together. Hard to have desire if you don't love playing with the blokes in ya team and if you don't love the club.

My 2 cents worth In the third 1/4 when we turned it on, we backed our run and handballed to moving targets. Moloney found a lot of it during this period. Also, Tom McDonald was good in this period (the rest of his game was terrible). The key difference was the run to receive. It's been missing. Too often we handball to guys that are flat footed. We tackled and pressured better than we have for a long time. Magner has had two off weeks and may have been found out. Needs to have a good one against the 'Aints this week. Mitch Clark is a dominant player. He earns respect by being a bullocking type player. You cannot question his endevour. I would hate to see the effect of him receiving some decent delivery. I thought James Frawley lowered his colours. May have beaten his opponent but his general skills and disposal were sub-standard. All good to do the twist and turn in the middle of the ground, but if you get caught and turn it over, you are a liability. (side note: saw Chip at the supermarket in Victoria Street richmond at about 12pm. Doing some shopping. Thought it was odd that he was not at home preparing. I guess they want their day to be as normal as possible.) Morton was good. I have been a basher, but it was his best game in a long time. He needs to remain in the side. Davey showed flashes. Still HATES body contact and did not go in at teh contest a number of times. It hurts the side. Jamar's ruck work is SHITHOUSE at the moment. He jumps too early. Does not hit to advantage and has falling away in the last few weeks Howe is a gun, not just coz of his marking ability but general field play is good too. Glad we have him. Watts was good in parts but dropped a crucial mark at a crucial stage of the game. He too often takes two bites at the cherry. Needs to learn how to clunk them one grab. He did take a great mark (contested) on the members wing, punt rd end fifty). Joel Mac is a tard. Should not be seen in the red and blue again. Sellar is worth persisting with. Dunn likes picking fights and niggle but cant actually play. No use keeping hot air on the field any longer. I tip my hat to Matty Bate. He really had a dip last night. We all know he has limitations but had a red hot crack. Why oh why do our players seem to have no awareness? We get caught from behind far too much. Clearly not enough talk onfield. We need to use our picks wisely at the end of the year. We MUST look at mature players. 22-26. The gap is too great. No use loading up on more kids who may or may not take the next step.

I think there were closer to 2000-5000 doggies supporters there. No lie. There were stuff all. We had a pretty dominant Dee's crowd last night. I am both MFC and MCC member but always sit in the MCC. Not because I think I am elitist or anything like that. Usually because it is the most MFC dominant area of the stadium. Thats a fact. It would be nice if more MFC members sat in the old 'red seat section so we could be united on the wing as one supporter group. I spoke to CS about this some years ago at one of the Youth Summit's. He told me at the time that teh MFC was looking at moving the MFC mmebers backt o the Northern stand and Olympic stands.

he'd get a game in our current team. Sad, but true

Can anyone shed some light on how far away the following players are: Moloney, Sylvia and Jurrah? It was my understanding that Col was hopeful he would return this round. At least that was his initial aim. How wfar off is he? Also Moloney, I am not even sure what his injury is. But is he a chance for recall this week? I would love for him to be playing in this match. Long time Dee's supporter, reckon he would be up and about to play on Sunday. Finally, Liam ... where is he, is his wrist heeled? When will he have a run at Casey? Etc etc Sorry if these questions have been answered already i am sorry, having trouble finding any info from the club or elsewhere atm.

no wonder we don't fkn tackle hard. We only get suspended if we do. But its OK for West Coast players to iron out our blokes behind the play and/or brake our jaws with flying elbows. What a joke. The umpire initially called a throw in until he saw Jackson was struggling to get up. To the poster above who suggested the whistle had blown and he slung him, by your own admission you weren't there, so STFU. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC7d1CQDet4 SEE WHEN YOU HEAR THE WHISTLE BUDDY! As someone else pointed out, Jackson deadset threw all his weight in some sort of wresting move and knocked Jack out cold and gets nothing. Bot incidents are on the link i psoted above. Watch Jackson grab Grimes by the shirt and grimace in effort to throw weight back on him.

So will we have jumpers done for tomorrows game? I presume not. So will we have stickers or patches sewn on? This all reminds me of the years we had Pioneer Homes and Snowy Mountain debacle

Has anyone got a photo of what the jumper looked like from TFS? Interested to see the logo on the jumper.

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/132354/default.aspx OVER!

I have read more than one. Next. Why would he take us to the cleaners? What would he sue us for? Other than court costs? That would require us losing. Not sure your background, but we wouldn't lose this case. He is owner, founder and CEO of Energy Watch. Therefore the compnay is headed by a man with extremely racist views. Are you getting this? There is no legal argument "there was another company with a shady past, so the fact I am racist and have a contract with MFCdoesn't mean the agreement is totally unworkable". I don't mean to insult you mate, but you clearly have no understanding of the law. If you read my short explanation, you would have at least made sense. The reality is, if we end the deal, I would presume we have a settlement with EW whereby they pay us this season's $2mil and that's it. Anything less and the club will go to court.

Not sure why people are wanting to keep EW. I jsut explained that it's very possible we get the $$$ and flick EW and then have a new sponsor. We actually benefit from flicking them. The case is pretty easy to be honest. You think any Australian court will condone a racist compnay? No way...It's a classic case of frustration. We argue that EW can no longer fulfil its promotional obligations and the brand of the MFC will be tarnished because of the association. We then argue that we expected $X . We are probably not entitled to full amount of contract, but certainly part of. Unless the club says that it is now too difficult to secure a future sponsor. We can also join AFL to the action. Well EW may wish to.

We could probably sue Energy Watch to be honest. Under contract law and the doctrine of frustration. Its arguable in my view.Sorry to bore you with legal insight, but here is a short explanation for those interested. " The doctrine of frustration - which is effectively a court order that the contract is no longer binding on either party (the contract just stops in its tracks) - is very rarely considered by the courts. The usual way in which the doctrine is raised is where some disaster has overtaken the contract and one party then fails to perform. The other party then complains that the first party is in breach. The answer to this may be that failure to perform is not a breach because the contract has been frustrated as a result of the disaster. In short, frustration, if successfully argued, is an excuse for failure to perform. The doctrine, as I have said, is rarely argued successfully. This is because the courts have taken the view that one function of contract is to allocate risk and that, if something does go badly wrong, then this is just a risk which the contract ought to have contemplated. See the passage on p 724 last para from the case of Paradine v Jane in 1647 which reflects the idea that contract promises should be kept, whatever the circumstances. In other words, at the very moment that one party finds it very hard to perform, the other party wants an assurance of performance, or at least damages in lieu, because this is what contract is all about. People are paid to take the risk of difficult performance. The law nevertheless did allow some softening of this absolute principle and developed a doctrine of frustration. This treatment of frustration will not be as detailed as most of the other areas of the law of contract which we have examined. This is partly because, as already noted, it is a rare in practice and also because we are limited in the time left to deal with the remaining topics in the course. The development of the doctrine of frustration HPH 724-727 The case book outlines briefly the history of the development of frustration. The beginning of the doctrine is said to be the case of Taylor v Caldwell in 1863, a case involving the hire of a hall. Before the day on which the hirer was to use the hall, it burnt down. This was held to be a frustrating event which caused the contract to be terminated and neither party was in breach. Frustration cases since then have involved a number of different types of frustrating event. The key question is always: is this an event which excuses the parties from further performance or is it an event which is the type of risk which the contract expressly or impliedly contemplated? If the latter then the contract is not frustrated and, if a party does not perform, he or she is in breach. <a name="The theoretical basis for frustration">The theoretical basis for frustration The courts over the years have had a great deal of difficulty in deciding what is the proper theoretical basis for the court intervening in the contract and declaring it to be frustrated. The theories have varied and there have been fashions over the years. The three headings below reflect the three phases or fashions, with the last one being the one which courts tend to adopt to-day." The important part in all that is that we can sue EW for damages due to the disaster. It's rarely successful though. But this is one such case where it may be. The expectation damages would be the money we expected to be given by EW.

I don't usually get caught up with the 'sky is falling' mentality that goes on round here, but dead set fellas, I reckon we are f@$%ed. I cannot see how we are going to survive this year financially without a bloody sponsor, if we dump this mob. We will be lucky to win a game, we will fold in 3 years at this rate. I don't fee this is an exaggeration. The fickle Dees supporters, of which there are plenty, have jumped off the wagon for 2012 already. This has happned too many fkn times to us. It's happening again. I cannot believe it. CS better get his finger out of his arse and nail a sponsor quick. Swallow ya pride and ego Cam and get the job done.

So Aaaron did or did not have a sook to Misfud about the new coaching staff? That's what I wish to know. If he did, then all that proves is that Davey is a lazy footballer who was unhappy that he was being made to work hard. The side issue or main issue in this case is what Misfud did with the information. He should have never, under no circumstances, leaked info to anyone in the media before internally dealing with the matter. He is f$ed the integrity of his role, the AFL and the game and thus should be given the bullet. Am I missing something here?

Msfud began backing up the story and was quickly cut short by Andrew Demitriou who was quick to make it clear that sory was adsolutely not true. They have issued a 'warning' to Misfud. This story will blow up. No wonder Neeld was looking like his eyeballs were about to pop! Surely Misfud must walk...

Jason Mifsud is on air now. The AFL needs to fire this bloke. Sorry title is not clear. But Jason Mifsud has admitted he gave Thomas the story about our handling of the indigenous players.

Sorry mate. Must have missed it amongst the 1 billion 'crisis' threads....

Glad no one gives a stuff about this...let the MFCSS continue...

http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/7415/newsid/132099/default.aspx title speaks for itself ....