Jens Lehmann

I must say, I am not immune from the stupidity. Nor is anyone else, in spite of their delusions.

I think I might have a little something in common with BH, in that when MFC is winning, this place holds little interest for me. The success of the side and my interest in demonland seem to vary inversely. It's not a conscious decision, just an observation. There's some interesting and intelligent conversation on here that satisfies me when watching the footy itself becomes hardly bearable. But on the whole I reckon there's a hell of a lot of stupid comments by all and sundry. I have a feeling the assertion that it is something reserved for MFC supporters alone, is actually a veiled barb to generate a reaction from the great unwashed. I think he's smart enough to know that's not the case.

Really? I know the OP tries really hard to be funny, but that's just awful...

Rich man's Gysberts.

Agree, and I hope this is why Joel Macdonald has been dropped in lieu of Strauss. He fights to the death and wins the footy, but kills us by constantly giving the ball back. I'd be much happier with Strauss in his spot.

I heard last week that the reason he wasn't playing was because of a neck injury. Maybe the problem is with you..?

That is one of the silliest suggestions, for a role for any player, that I've seen in years. It's up there with Frawley in the midfield.

You, by the looks of it. There's no logic to understand, it's simply 2 points made in the one post, grouped by a common theme. But go on, you can continue your banal grandstanding by making unfair and ignorant comments.

I grouped it with your equally naff views. Live with it.

You're an absolute gem, olisik. Comedy gold. And the mind-numbing stupidity of some to think that we don't need KPFs, but are desperate to get mids... You are all aware that pick 20 came to us in the Hogan trade? The pick we then used to acquire Chris Dawes? Or maybe some are foolish enough to think Clark on his own is enough...

Nice try, but it really depends on the role he is being asked to play, which none of us are privy to. Scratch that, it was a poor attempt.

You're allowed to have it, and I'll happily ignore it from now on...

Short answer: Yes.

I like threads like this, because it tells me which posters' opinions I should ignore out of hand in the future.

Than one of your rubbish threads? Yes.

"Refusal to be intimidated"?? I've seen him flinch quite a few times, when someone has bitten back. Most notably the chapman incident. There's nothing tough about that, it's just cringeworthy. Ugh.

I recall about 18 months ago, when it appeared Dangerfield may be available, that a poster nominated Tapscott as the type of player we'd have to be prepared to let go to get Dangers over to MFC. He was howled down by posters who thought he was untouchable. Wonder what those same posters think now? *The same person also proposed Petterd, with the same response.

I've seen her only a few times in the flesh, each time when I'm running late to get to a match, and she is leaving the MCG midway through the 1st quarter. She has little interest in the game itself, only the politics surrounding it.

No, if CC didn't make the comment, they'd have focused on something else, or the fine and penalties coupled with "not guilty" would've just seemed even more implausible.

Don't agree. CC's comment just became the most convenient way of penalising the club without finding them guilty.

So... Chris Connolly is batman?

Pretty happy after Thumper's first outing. The kid is going to be very good.

It's revisionist crap to say Scully left because of the culture. It was always about the money.

Re: Caro's question to Garry Lyon "do you want me to name names?" Make no mistake: this was a very thinly veiled threat. Garry didn't not hear her and get caught up in defending his own character. He deliberately moved on quickly, and ignored the question as if he didn't hear it. Lyon knew the names she was speaking of and didn't want them revealed. It was a clear threat from Caroline to drop it and move on.

Possiby. The Pies aren't dependent on the AFL for financial assistance, and their crowd numbers mean it's largely irrelevant what the AFL tries to use as retribution by fixture manipulation. Fact is, the pies currently have much more leverage against the AFL than we do, beyond being in the right. I also think they have access to a person like Eddie, which we don't, who can shape and influence public opinion to the point of either making this go away, or artful misdirection onto a straw man argument that allowed for the AFL to clear us and move on.