Bluey's Dad

Wow, would love to see that sort of professionalism by the current one...

Agreed on the classy comment. The only problem is that it leaves the "AFL idiots" to shout about how unfair it all is in the media without any kind of retort. Although we can see how juvenile the whining is, I'd bet that a lot of people won't. The end result will be more sympathy for Essendon and less outrage at AFL concessions made to them.

Great post FireOath!

Wow.

I remember reading they stuck a bunch of wind farms out in the ocean. Shitload of wind out there and they don't need to worry about acquiring land. There's an awful lot of wind in Bass Strait....

Yep, and they are. Shell owns patents in renewable energies, this article below goes into how they invest in biofuel, landfill gas and better methods of oil recovery: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/03/06/shell-oil-provides-surprising-developments-in-renewable-energy-along-with-oil-and-gas-tech/id=55211/ I remember reading somewhere that they also own some solar power patents, but can't find a link. With the falling price of oil, renewables will make more and more economic sense to oil companies. Even if you accept the theory that oil companies buy renewable patents in order to keep them from being developed, eventually those technologies may become more profitable for those companies, and then they'll start the implement them on a wide-scale. They won't do it to save the environment, they'll do it because it makes them money. Once it becomes more profitable for the oil companies to roll out more renewables, they'll do it. Ultimately they're in the money business. The concern from the 'greenies' I guess is that this tipping point won't happen until it's too late for the environment. Not sure why a climate change denier would be concerned at all, given the oil companies will always do what's best for the oil companies. If that means renewables, they'll do it. Either way, the status quo of the existing energy companies remaining profitable endures. As an aside, I'm sure that the USA would love to be less dependant on oil from the middle east. Their relationship with Saudi Arabia is heavily compromised by oil imports. Strategically, it makes sense for them to be less reliant on middle eastern oil. Likewise with Europe and Russia's gas pipelines. IMHO, the tipping point for economically viable renewables isn't far away. TESLA's new battery technology is already making solar for individual houses a much more appetising prospect. Once the economics take over, the environmental argument takes care of itself. People will vote with their wallets, and the wallets and environment will then be aligned. Then we don't have to worry about climate 'drones' or 'deniers'.

lol this guy has lost it: "The photo attached to your story implies that the 34 Essendon players are sub-human. In mywildest dreams I couldn’t imagine that someone had so much hatred in their heart towards theEssendon players to allow such a depiction to be linked to the story." It's a play on see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil. How can he not see that? "The irony is you are so stupid I suspect that you have given the players an opportunity to prove their innocence in an Australian court. If the players don’t sue you and your newspaper for a sum that ensures you will have to defend the case in court, then they don’t deserve our support or sympathy." What does this even mean? Seriously.

Fox Sports AFL: Former Bomber to appeal drug ban Apparently just NLM: My favourite excerpt: "His personal injury and compensation claim against Essendon will be handled by lawyer Tony Nolan, but the AFLPA has told him it will run his appeal without charge. " So in addition to the CAS appeal, he's suing Essendon!

Surely not. Which players? All 34? Or NLM's 'splinter' group?

If he doesn't hand it back, I assume one Mr Corey McKernan might have a few things to say.

I heard a pretty straightforward argument the other day on Triple M. You can't win the Brownlow if you are suspended for any game in the season. Jobe has been retroactively suspended for that year. He is therefore ineligible simply based on that.

In one word, yes. Some more thoughts though: Cowan: Looks like she can do the job judging by qualifications - tick Is a woman - bonus Pierce: Is a gun footballer - tick Loves the club - tick (see her B&F speech) Is a woman - part and parcel of her football ability since she can't play in there is no 'unisex' league - tick

I wonder if you could use a digital radio and delay that feed instead.

Could whoever moderated out my comment and gif please contact me? I need to apologise for having a sense of humour.

Mini-draft? Seriously? I'm starting to think the AFL is some sort of elaborate practical joke visited on the Australian public by some as yet unrevealed master troll. The punch line better be funny.

Ah, of course. My mistake.

Couldn't be happier with this

They should be. After all they tanked equalising the competition in order to get better broadcast rights. And as we all know, the penalty for tanking is to be charged with disrepute.

That's probably a better idea. Just use whatever Centrelink uses as rules for 'disadvantaged'. So maybe if the family qualifies for the Low Income Supplement, their children get to go to the local academy. No arguing over who qualifies or not because it's not the AFL making the decision. It's all based on Centrelink's rules. That actually makes some sense to me. No chance of happening.

The AFL's definition of multicultural will be interesting here. Let's not forget their habit of applying different rules to different clubs. I wouldn't be surprised if the Hawks got access to first generation Greeks or Italians, but there is some manufactured excuse why those of the same background in the Dee's 'academy zone' can't go to us. Is it only Indigenous, first gen Asian and African players this applies to? What about an Asian family immigrating from Europe? What about Irish families? If it is limited to first generation immigrants, then those with academies in those growth corridors with those ethnicities will benefit disproportionately. At the end of the day, I have zero faith that this program will be implemented equitably. I'm not even sure why it's being done in the first place. Not sure if it's just MFCSS or complete mistrust of the AFL or a combination of both

Why do academies need to be linked to a club? Am I missing something? Doesn't the funding come from the AFL?

I think we all know which of us feels the need to be 'morally superior' on this forum.

My brother is a North supporter and until this came out was in the "it's been too long, just let it slide" camp. Once this information was released his position became "ban them for as long as possible". I think a lot of supporters would have had this reaction.