chookrat

Traitor

These stats look pretty made up. That all 18 teams have numbers that increment by exactly 1,000 makes me question how these are calculated.

At the 2 min 30 sec mark Trac specifically mentions Kate Roffey and the support from the club. Re speaking directly to Trac it was in reference to his frustrations raised with the Footy Department towards the end of season which were being managed by the Footy Department. As for speaking to his family, Trac and his partner had been away in Noosa to get away from footy so I'm not sure why the President would be calling him and his partner at this time.

The narrative that Kate didn't speak to Trac is false and needs to stop. In his video a week or two after the injury Trac specifically mentioned Kate Roffey and how supportive she had been. In the recent interview re speaking directly to Trac she was clear that the Footy Department were handling player interviews and that her door was open should Trac want to speak to her directly. Trac and the club have been clear re his trauma and giving him as much time as he needs to work through this with Goody, Richo and the Leadership team in constant dialogue with Trac. It would be inappropriate for the President to be getting directly involved re his playing future beyond offering her support. While I'm comfortable that Kate stood down as President, as she didn't communicate to a level you would expect from the President of a football club I don't accept the narrative that she failed to communicate with Trac or that she is in denial re challenges at our club.

I wouldn't believe a word that either of those two muppets say. It seems all they do is lurk around forums and regurgitate rumours sprinkled with the occasional fact and then speculate on very minor yet specific details to make it seem credible.

For clarity Trac did not recommit but rather released a statement that he remains committed.

The media have no idea most of the time. They pretty much hear a rumour and then throw some speculation out there to generate a reaction.

Viney looking to get out??

What has happened to young Eddie? Seems to have gone to ground since the Tracc rumours started and haven't heard a peep out of him since. Pretty disappointing that he refuses to tell us what is going on.

Watching the video the club did where Kossie, Goody, Oliver and McAdam spent time in Kossies hometown I would think in his situation it is less about day to day support and more being able to regularly get time away from the club to go home. Being homesick after not being back for 6 months makes sense and I'm sure the club will look at how Kossie and his family can get back home during the season next year.

Would there be any rules against trading out Maxy and then voting him in as our President while he plays for another club? Does anyone know whether player contracts restrict players from holding other roles in the AFL. Given Danger is the player rep for the AFLPA could Maxy play for say Collingwood while being our president?

The problem I see is that to pay 95% of the cap we would need to renegotiate contracts that existing players have not earned which would inevitably lead to underperformance. It's a bit like paying an artist a reasonable wage only to find that the material possessions make them less creative than when they had nothing. Therefore a no for me.

Absolute legend and arguably the best player in the comp over the past 5 years. Looking forward to his next 3 - 4 years.

We looked pretty fit vs Gold Coast.

Crickey, it seems like even the MRC executive are jumping ship to avoid being associated with us.

T Mac gets another year no matter who we bring in. I reckon this year has been his best season ever.

We absolutely need Melksham on our list for the next 1 to 2 years. Offensively he straightens up our entire forward half and does a great defensive job on intercepting defenders, not to mention the leadership he brings both on field to our young forward line and also team culture.

I cannot believe we used the language that Moore 'dropped to his knees' rather than 'slid into the contest'. The latter would have provided a clear argument that sliding is not a reasonable action and therefore not something Kossie would have reasonably expected. There is no point appealing this now as we cannot make this argument on appeal. Does anyone know whether Anderson was the lawyer we used for JVR's appeal? Finally in the off season we should train to slide into ground ball contests and use our knees in aerial contests against the filth.

Schwartz would be one of the last people I'd want as a Board Member. While he is passionate, outside of his playing career he hasn't worked in a footy club and has no general management, board or technical expertise. As a passionate public figure he will overreact when things aren't going well creating instability without knowing how to solve problems.

Another perspective on this is that if Kossie's leg was seriously injured in the collision then Moore would have been on report. I wonder what happens if both Moore was concussed and Kossie's leg broken in the same incident, would both players be suspended? There is nothing in the Tribunal Guidelines which prioritises one reportable offence over another, and if Moore's action is not considered for Kossie's report then the same argument would apply if both players were injured, e.g. ignore the other players action and purely focus on the bump and slide separately for each reportable offence.

I reckon we can successfully argue that Kossie's action was not careless because 1. He was contesting the ball and it was reasonable to do so in that way - Kossie actually gets to the ball first and pedals it with his foot at the same time the contact is made, he is playing the ball. 2. The circumstances were out of Kossie's control, he could not have anticipated that Moore would slide on his knees, an action which also constitutes rough conduct. Were Moore not concussed and Pickett suffered a serious leg injury then it could actually be Moore facing suspension. Here is what the 2024 Tribunal Guidelines state: 1. Rough Conduct (High Bumps) The AFL Regulations provide that a Player will be guilty of Rough Conduct where in the bumping of an opponent (whether reasonably or unreasonably) the Player causes contact that is at least Low Impact to be made with any part of his body to an opponent’s head or neck. If not Intentional, such conduct will be deemed to be Careless, unless: » The Player was contesting the ball and it was reasonable for the Player to contest the ball in that way; or » The contact to the opponent’s head or neck was caused by circumstances outside the control of the Player which could not be reasonably foreseen. 4. Rough Conduct (Contact Below the Knees) Under the Laws of Australian Football, it is prohibited to make contact with an opponent below the knees. Players who keep their feet are vulnerable to serious injury from opponents who lunge, dive or slide toward them and make contact below the knees. » The degree of momentum and/or force involved in the contact; » Whether the Player causes contact below the knees, without limitation, by sliding with his foot, feet, knee or knees in front of him; » Whether the opposition Player was in a position that was vulnerable to contact below the knees (for example, standing over the ball or approaching from the opposite direction); and » Whether the Player making contact had any realistic alternative ways of approaching the contest or situation

Should have been a free to Roo for front on contact against Moore in the marking contest as well.

Boards should listen to people who know what they are talking about and not members. Imagine if the MFC board listened to the nuffies on Demonland.

Well said. Hopefully the other legal matter which seems to grow new heads on the eve of each season since 2021 into perpetuity is resolved soon and the outcomes of the Caulfield Racecourse feasibility study are announced.

Loving that the word nuffies is being used here to describe opposition players or in general anyone who isn't Melbourne.