2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

[lamby29]

Melbourne Football Club

Final Ladder Position? 4th
Best & Fairest? Travis Johnstone
Leading Goalkicker? David Neitz - 72, 2nd Aaron Rogers-47
Most Improved? Paul Wheatley
Most Votes in Brownlow? Travis Johnstone

Biggest talking point as far as your club is concerned?
Finding consistency

Name 3 players to watch out for?
Aaron Rogers, Steven Armstrong, Cameron Hunter

Biggest strength of your team? Forward/Defence/Midfield: Midfield

If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be?
Bombers

Most memorable win?
Against Collingwood with Moorcroft kicking 7,Heffernan getting 37 possesions and Rogers kicking 5 in a fantastic display by the Dees.


What will your team be known for the most in 2003? Consistency interstate.

In 15 words or less, describe your coach? Clever

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Adelaide Football Club

Ladder Position? 3rd after the minor round & anything can happen in finals
Best & Fairest? Andrew McLeod
Leading Goalkicker? Wayne Carey 70 goals
Most Improved? Kenny McGregor & Matty Bode
Most Votes in Brownlow? Andrew McLeod (enough to win it too)
Biggest talking point as far as your club is concerned? Sanders becomes President, but otherwise quiet for major news.
Name 3 players to watch out for? James Gallagher, Ben Rutten, Trent Hentschel
Biggest strength of your team? Midfield - class & depth
If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be? Port Adelaide - sick of losing to them
Most memorable win(s)? Finals, Showdowns & Carey's 1st game against the Kangaroos.
What will your team be known for the most in 2003? Exciting & non-comprimising style of play. Giving the finals a real shake.
In 15 words or less, describe your coach? Continues to bond well with the players & takes the club to a record winning games in the season.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Kimbo
[B
What makes it particularly repugnant for me, is Eddie's façade of statesman-like concern for footy. I'm not saying he doesn't have some concern for other clubs or the capacity to see outside his own interests at times. The image I get of Eddie, however, is the greasy big spender ostentaciously stuffing bills into the beggars pocket, looking around to make sure everyone knows about it. Sure, he might have actually given the beggar some aid, but he makes sure everyone knows about it. In other words, it's ultimately about him (and his interests) not those of the others he purports to support.

[/B]

While behind his back, making sure that the "beggar" stays a "beggar".

 

[The Phat Side]

From this thread looks like there will be 14 teams in the 8!!

 

[The Phat Side]

by kimbo

The image I get of Eddie, however, is the greasy big spender ostentaciously stuffing bills into the beggars pocket, looking around to make sure everyone knows about it. Sure, he might have actually given the beggar some aid, but he makes sure everyone knows about it. In other words, it's ultimately about him (and his interests) not those of the others he purports to support.

Youre wrong. My wife works for one of the MANY volunteer organisations he supports...and he does much more than just toss in a few bucks, but 99% of what he does for underpriveleged and sick people he makes sure no one knows about. He makes that a criteria for support in fact. He is very working class and a decent person. He is not the only high profile person who does this but he is the subject of your attack here.

For someone who has no respect for commercial media exploiting their own interests, you sure get sucked in easy by "media profile" thats all an act for the masses who channel 9 and others know just turn on their telly and park their brain.

Nice speech kid but you have NO fuggin idea about the man.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by The Phat Side
Youre wrong. My wife works for one of the MANY volunteer organisations he supports...and he does much more than just toss in a few bucks, but 99% of what he does for underpriveleged and sick people he makes sure no one knows about. He makes that a criteria for support in fact. He is very working class and a decent person. He is not the only high profile person who does this but he is the subject of your attack here.

For someone who has no respect for commercial media exploiting their own interests, you sure get sucked in easy by "media profile" thats all an act for the masses who channel 9 and others know just turn on their telly and park their brain.

Nice speech kid but you have NO fuggin idea about the man.

It would be good if you had some reference to support this, but I think one of the problems of Eddie's charity is the perception that he "gives them some fish", rather than "teaching them to fish" if you follow that old saying.

 

[The Phat Side]

by grayham

It would be good if you had some reference to support this,

And the reference to back up your "perception" is...?

Point is its intelligent to critcise him about his media role or his job as Coll President, both transparent public roles. Its ignorant to suggest you know what he does in his private life and whether he is a fish giver or fish teacher.

 

[hutstar]

Eddie

I personally don't give a toss either way about Eddie, but to put it simply, if he was a Tigers man, I'd be pretty happy to have him working for us. He is obviously working primarily for his own interest- he is not obliged otherwise- and anything he does for charity puts him ahead of 99% of the population, including, i dare say, everbody involved in this petty little argument.
hutstar

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by grayham
Since you arent coming around, or trying to get the point yet. Which essentially is on two parts for a summary: 1) Eddie's power provides less checks and balances on his behavior, no matter what _you_ intend to do if things go pair shaped. 2) Eddie is less accountable on the big AFL issues than someone like Wayne Jackson as the only people who can dislodge him if, IF, he goes off the rails are the collingwood failful, who a sizable percentage have blind faith in him.
Pure and simple, lack of accountability, no denying those facts. Now I add my opinion, is that he also lacks reponsibility in AFL matters.

It’s not a matter of not getting the point. I don’t agree with it and you give me no reason to question that. If Eddie goes off the rails he will be as accountable as anyone.

Originally posted by grayham
Another analogy is that republican debate. Basically we have an anomoly in our constitution where a non-Australia can dictate to some degree the government of this country in extreme circumstances. The monachists have a faith that the monarchy would never do anything to harm us, so why change whats worked for years, and the republicans feel that this anomoly should be corrected to negate the chance that an english monachy abuses that power and acts against Australias interest.
Now, no one is saying the queen or charles is "evil" as you like to say.
But I, as a republican, would say that this "faith" the monachists have is an unnessesarily risky situation to be in.

Well we agree on the republican issue anyway. It’s no anomaly though, it was deliberate as was the sabotage of the referendum by the “conservatives”. You are right it is not a question of whether the current royals are evil. The point, for me, is that they are not relevant for us and I hate the idea of subordination to the mother country, however theoretical it is.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by The Phat Side
And the reference to back up your "perception" is...?

Point is its intelligent to critcise him about his media role or his job as Coll President, both transparent public roles. Its ignorant to suggest you know what he does in his private life and whether he is a fish giver or fish teacher.

A reference to a perception??

You've presented some new information that is unsubstantiated, and from all accounts seems unlikely given Eddie's love of publicity. I would be happy to be proven otherwise, but until then I shall take it with a grain of salt.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by MarkT
It’s not a matter of not getting the point. I don’t agree with it and you give me no reason to question that. If Eddie goes off the rails he will be as accountable as anyone.

What dont you agree with:
1) A large percentage of collingwood members/supporters have put him on a pedestal and have "blind" faith in him. Not all.
2) He is able to use his media exposure to spin himself into a favourable light. Whether he has done it before is not the point. Is he able?
3) Eddie is able to influence the AFL on big-picture things like vic-clubs, northern clubs, salary caps, drafts, zones, blockbusters, gate recepts, yet is not elected by all football supporters whom these decisions impact. So not accountable to them.

 

[ramjet]

Originally posted by grayham
A reference to a perception??

You've presented some new information that is unsubstantiated, and from all accounts seems unlikely given Eddie's love of publicity. I would be happy to be proven otherwise, but until then I shall take it with a grain of salt.

so now not only do pie supporters have 'blind faith' in eddie as president of the club but we also go out of our way to lie for the sake of his reputation. surely youre running out of straws to clutch grayham.

 

[Lockyer24]

1) A large percentage of collingwood members/supporters have put him on a pedestal and have "blind" faith in him. Not all.

As has been explained to you countless times, he has the runs on the board so far on and off the ground. Continued improvement from the playing group each season and huge profits tend to open your eyes pal.

2) He is able to use his media exposure to spin himself into a favourable light. Whether he has done it before is not the point. Is he able?

No spinning required, hes genuine. Read The Phat Sides post. I also know of a few behind the scenes goodwill deeds Eddie has contributed, which unfortunately I cant disclose either. I know you'd love for Eddie to be a ogre out of the limelight - you might actually have a reasonable excuse for his continual character assasination. (Youre as bad as that twit who runs Crikey, has a vendetta against him cos Eds sister knocked him back!)

3) Eddie is able to influence the AFL on big-picture things like vic-clubs, northern clubs, salary caps, drafts, zones, blockbusters, gate recepts, yet is not elected by all football supporters whom these decisions impact. So not accountable to them.

You're talking absolute rubbish here, there is no rule saying AFL Presidents must look out for the good of the competition!
As far as Im concerned Eddie speaking out about the salary cap concessions IS looking out for the good of the game. Whilst the current rule is strengthening the northern states, its also killing Victorian clubs. Saying that he only has this stance because it is good for his own club is only typical predictable guesswork from you. (as usual)

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by ramjet
so now not only do pie supporters have 'blind faith' in eddie as president of the club but we also go out of our way to lie for the sake of his reputation. surely youre running out of straws to clutch grayham.

You cant debate heresay.

 

[ramjet]

Originally posted by grayham
You cant debate heresay.

thankyou for validating my point.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by Lockyer24
1) As has been explained to you countless times, he has the runs on the board so far on and off the ground. Continued improvement from the playing group each season and huge profits tend to open your eyes pal.



2) No spinning required, hes genuine. Read The Phat Sides post. I also know of a few behind the scenes goodwill deeds Eddie has contributed, which unfortunately I cant disclose either. I know you'd love for Eddie to be a ogre out of the limelight - you might actually have a reasonable excuse for his continual character assasination. (Youre as bad as that twit who runs Crikey, has a vendetta against him cos Eds sister knocked him back!)



3) You're talking absolute rubbish here, there is no rule saying AFL Presidents must look out for the good of the competition!
As far as Im concerned Eddie speaking out about the salary cap concessions IS looking out for the good of the game. Whilst the current rule is strengthening the northern states, its also killing Victorian clubs. Saying that he only has this stance because it is good for his own club is only typical predictable guesswork from you. (as usual)

This was actually a question for MarkT as I can see a glimer of intellect in there somewhere. As for you:

1) They would actually make your more blind
2) Again, is he able?
3) Again, is he accountable to Brisbane and Sydney supporters/members to whom these decisions would impact the most? No.

BTW, there is more than enough money in vic for the current number of teams. Its just that some vic teams are greedily taking more and more of the victorian pie. (no pun intended)

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by ramjet
thankyou for validating my point.

Ahhh, its actually negating your point....

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by Kimbo
So which is it? You really do care, despite what you've said, or you just defend him because it's the Collingwood way (ie blind faith).

Well I honestly don’t care whether Grayham loves, hates Eddie or anything in betweens Eddie. I don’t have to just let him babble on with unsubstantiated rubbish. If that means I care about the issues then I’ll cop that.

Originally posted by Kimbo
Yeah, and you sound just so objective. Thank goodness we have you to tell us how it really is, and it really is that simple. Thank goodness you have no predisposed views. Just a realist making a stand for good ol' Collingwood.

I have never said I was anything but a one eyed Collingwood supporter. I am addressing issues raised by Grayham. To any extent that is making a stand for Collingwood I make no apologies. You can make any assumption you like about my ability reason for myself.

Originally posted by Kimbo
Would you consider it detrimental if the host of a TV show about AFL, which, amongst other things such as slapstick buffonery, claimed to have an overaraching interest in the well-being of football at large, demonstrated bias in favour of one club in matters like amount of airtime, favourable comments, last right of reply, all the time claiming to be neutral and objective?

You mean like Basil’s Footy Show in Perth, some other show targeted at an audience for rating purposes or The Collingwood Show on Thursday nights? The Collingwood show was the Collingwood Show before it was the President’s show. Irrespective, no I wouldn’t have a problem. If I didn’t like it I wouldn’t watch it. I certainly wouldn’t complain when I did because I would know after umpteen years what I was getting.

Do I think it is fundamentally wrong? No.
Do I see that other clubs don’t have the advantage Collingwood get from having a passionate supporter who has a footy show? Yes.

Originally posted by Kimbo
You seem to think that opponents of Eddie see him as some ogre with malevolent powers to strike down opposition. I don’t. Rather, it’s like the case with US media and cultural imperialism (NB this is a simile, not an direct comparison) my concern is with the pervasiveness and with undisclosed (or denied) bias and agendas. From my observation, I see Eddie using his media role and influence to give disproportionate airtime and glowing commentary regarding the club of which he also happens to be President. It’s like only hearing the US (CNN) version of the conflict between the US and Iraq.

You are drawing wider inferences from my comments in response to comments from one person than appropriate. I have no doubt that whatever Eddie did SOME people would assume alteria motives regardless.

I honestly don’t think anyone expects other than a Collingwood slant from The Footy Show. Like with CNN though, you can get an alternative view. I don’t only hear the US version of the issues you refer to or the entire Middle East “problem” for that matter. This is footy though, not world peace. Some perspective is relevant. Eddie uses his media role to further himself and whatever he holds dear. His own financial prosperity is one of the things he holds dear and he is an ambitious man. Collingwood is clearly another thing he holds dear. He doesn’t give any impression other than this though.

Originally posted by Kimbo
I am not naïve enough to think Eddie is not naïve enough to know that some of his gestures towards other clubs aren’t designed to convey Collingwood as some sort of grand old benefactor. *wince*

If that is so (and it is your assumption) then so what? It is unsavory underhanded Collingwood double motives that you object to, is it more a distaste for a broader principle or is it just a personal thing?

Originally posted by Kimbo
Not for me, though I confess to being inherently suspicious, since he who controls information controls opinion….

With this we are in heated agreement.

Originally posted by Kimbo
…Now, whilst Eddie is not the sole voice of football media, the extent of his growing influence is disturbing.

Not here.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think that's the link with Jack Elliott. Eddie may not be Jack Elliott, but he displays the same traditional, “boy’s club” style, and the same antagonistic attitude to those who disagree or get in the way of his ambitions. Couple this with a dominant, if not monopolistic, position within the (football) media then there is opportunity for largely unchecked abuse of the implied responsibility.[/QUOTE]
Monopolistic is not even in the ball park. It is not even close to true to say Eddie is not roundly criticized in the media from time to time. Sure he cops less from his employers like Ch.9, MMM or the H/S. That is par for the course in the real world. You won’t find Tim Lane being criticized by ABC colleges either.

He also has the opportunity to do lots of things, good and bad. Even if he had the unique opportunity you imply, it does go to his character one bit. What he does is fair enough for public comment. What he could do if… is matter for public speculation it seems but the results of some peoples assessment of his character are merely speculation by definition.

There is also a fundamental principle at stake here which few people are prepared to address. What controls are appropriate for AFL and/or club employees and their employment. Eddie does not get paid for what he does for his club. He gets well paid for what he does in his professional life. It costs him a lot of money to work for free. Sure their benefits but there are very real and significant costs. The same is true for some other presidents and board members at other clubs. I am not saying the situation is unique? The point is, can we or should we restrict the employment of voluntary servants? If so, where does the line get drawn? IMO you can’t restrict it from a legal, moral or financial standpoint. All the AFL can and should do is make sure if anyone over steps the universally defined line that they are all uniformly treated.

Originally posted by Kimbo
Yes, but we don’t possess the same opportunity Eddie does to get his views across, which makes it different I believe. Eddie has the capacity to influence AFL fixturing, through his role and influence as a Channel 9 producer, and to present his views longer, and more loudly and sometimes exclusively via The Footy Show. Worse, in my mind, Eddie denies any hint or possiblity of conflict of interest whenever such matters are raised. Like Bush, he simply expects us to believe him because he says so.

Of course you don’t.

The conflicts – some actual some imagined – that could or will arise are an issue touched on in this thread and which I am happy to discuss in another thread in more detail if you wish. There are plenty of ‘em around already though.

Originally posted by Kimbo
Have to be? Perhaps, but there are many who aren’t. We’re talking about the average footy supporter and consumer here… not clearly intelligent folks like me and you!

Have to be in the sense that they have no choice, or rather the choice is understand it or lump it.

So what “duty of care” is owed Joe Citizen? We are not talking about elected politicians here. Those duties apply to Eddie in his Presidential capacity but not his media role.

Originally posted by Kimbo
I think I’d be happy if he said as much. I host the Footy show, and I’m president of Collingwood, and Collingwood is going to get more airtime and have it’s needs and views represented more fully and more vigorously because I host the show. If you don’t like it, **** off. But he doesn’t. He disingenuinely portrays himself as some sort of de facto AFL ambassador or statesman.

Do you really think that it needs to be said or even if it was it make one iota of difference to anything at all? I disagree with the extent you claim Eddie to be operating in an underhanded manner. I accept that he portrays a certain image. It is merely what those involved in the media, such as he is, do. Image is important to career. For that matter it is a whole subject of education for every player and club official. It is the way of the world these days, like it or not. I think the whole issue of what Eddie holds himself out to be is more generated by others. Sure he would do little to dispel any myth of benevolence, if there even are any, but so what? None of it has anything to do with the issues originally raised and IMO means nothing to anyone except to add to the sum total of intangible theoretical reasons to dislike him personally. Of course that is merely my value judgment. You clearly have yours.

Originally posted by Kimbo
I think the fact that some of us, myself included expect it of Eddie counters your assertion. I do expect a level of objectivity or disclosed subjectivity, in the media. In effect, I think Eddie contributes to this expectation because he denies the very facts you just highlighted, at least publicly. That is, he claims to be unbiased in some matters, when he clearly has an axe to grind. Call it smart not to do so, or call it disingenuine. What galls me is that I think he thinks we believe what he says. Or worse, that he actually believes it himself.

What you feel entitled to expect, what you are objectively entitled from a legal and/or moral viewpoint and what you actually do get are all points for opinion and perspective based debate. The fact you feel entitled to be told something you already know – eg; Eddie is a rabid Collingwood man who will take any opportunity to advantage his club – does not mean that entitlement actually exists. Many would agree with you. The fact is the media is plainly biased in every aspect of its operation. It is a problem in many respects. Does a right wing newspaper have to say it is right wing? Does the ABC have to admit to a leftist lean like the Liberals always say it should? Should the Jewish News admit is reporting of any middle eastern issues are loaded with bias? You incert rights which do not exist and have expectations from a person and an organization which clearly is primarily concerned with one thing. Ratings and the financial results thereof.

At the end of the day it is open to any club in this anti discriminantory democracy to get a plumber, a politician, a captain of industry, a former VFL/AFL president or a Football journalist to act as their president.

Originally posted by Kimbo
And in saying this, I think you demonstrate how easy it is to go along with media views, which you note benefit Collingwood.

I wonder if you’d really see it this way if Eddie were to present a different view? If he were a strong advocate for both these concessions, arguing they were necessary for the growth of AFL nationally? Assume, for the moment, that you agreed with the AFL position that these were necessary, and without them, the growth of AFL nationally would be ******ed. Then, you’ve got the President of one club, a Victorian one, undermining the growth of the very code and league to which he belongs and ultimately owes some allegiance. A good thing? Of course not. I’m not arguing the merits of the issue either way, just highlighting how in this instance, you’ve got views expressed which are clearly biased (not “wrong”) but being put out there as being for the good of the competition. One thing to do it as President of Collingwood, another to do it as a media representative. Yet another to do it as both!

If you are insinuation I would agree with Eddie no matter what he advocated you are wrong. I disagree with some of what he does and some of what he says. I do agree with much more than I disagree with. Perhaps we are somewhat like minded, perhaps we are somewhat similarly motivated with respect to Collingwood and perhaps he is just right on a lot issues. Much of this is subjective. I don’t believe my views are biased on the issues in question. I believe something has to be put in place for a team like Sydney or Brisbane to compete. I don’t believe that because I give a crap about them. I believe it because there is a bigger picture, being the NSW and Qld. markets and what they add to the code/competition. I have discussed my views on these topics at length and I’d rather not re do it just now. Suffice to say I didn’t just pick Eddie’s opinion and adopt it as my own.

To insinuate that Eddie is one out on this issue is plainly wrong. We do not have the president of one club……
What we have is a number of clubs disagreeing with something and saying so. Eddie says so louder and more forcefully. He has the opportunity to do that. If you find that objectionable then that is your prerogative. Was it objectionable when Ranald McDonald ran Collingwood or when Alan Bond was president of Richmond? These guys had far more media influence than Eddie. What about when Mathews was an ABC panelist and coach of Collingwood? My god he could have criticized the umpires, the tribunal or the Pope. Personally I find far more objectionable that your club cannot speak on the issue of salary cap allowances because they are beholden unto the AFL Gods for financial survival.

 

[MarkT]

Originally posted by grayham
What dont you agree with:
1) A large percentage of collingwood members/supporters have put him on a pedestal and have "blind" faith in him. Not all.
2) He is able to use his media exposure to spin himself into a favourable light. Whether he has done it before is not the point. Is he able?
3) Eddie is able to influence the AFL on big-picture things like vic-clubs, northern clubs, salary caps, drafts, zones, blockbusters, gate recepts, yet is not elected by all football supporters whom these decisions impact. So not accountable to them.

I'll give you points for effort grayham. You have stepped a long way from your original comments and now tried to narrow things down to a few simple statements which mean little in the context of what was originall discussed. Nevertheless I will address each point later. Can’t do it now – busy.

 

[ramjet]

Originally posted by grayham
Ahhh, its actually negating your point....

ahh... no, its not. a poster made a claim you have no idea whether true or not yet claim otherwise. my post explains you dont really have any right to suggest that - accidentally or not, you support that in your subsequent post.

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by MarkT
I'll give you points for effort grayham. You have stepped a long way from your original comments and now tried to narrow things down to a few simple statements which mean little in the context of what was originall discussed. Nevertheless I will address each point later. Can’t do it now – busy.

I like a man who can admit he's beat. Well done.

My orginal comment was totally to do with point (1). Points (2) and (3) are just the power that (1) gives him, and his ability to keep (1) going.
So no stepping, but nice diversion attempt.....again.

 

[Roylion]

Brisbane Lions

Final Ladder Position? 1st or 2nd at end of home and away.
Best & Fairest? Nigel Lappin
Leading Goalkicker? Alistair Lynch - 60
Most Improved? Jason Gram
Most Votes in Brownlow? Whoever picks up the 3 votes in the Round 21 match against Geelong. Why change a tradition?

Biggest talking point as far as your club is concerned?
I couldn't seperate these three.
1. The Brisbane Lions possibly wearing Fitzroy guernseys - Round 19.
2. Whether Brisbane can achieve a threepeat.
3. That old perennial, the salary cap bonus issue.

Name 3 players to watch out for?
Jared Brennan, Anthony Corrie, Jason Gram

Biggest strength of your team? Forward/Defence/Midfield Midfield

If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be?
Port Adelaide, with Adelaide a close second.

Most memorable win?
For an old Fitzroy boy, the Lions in Fitzroy guernseys defeating Collingwood at the MCG in Round 19.

What will your team be known for the most in 2003? Our dominating midfield.

In 15 words or less, describe your coach?
Leigh Matthews - Supercoach.

 

[Mcchawk]

Originally posted by MCCHAWK


Hawthorn Football Club

Final Ladder Position? 4th
Best & Fairest? Luke Hodge
Leading Goalkicker? Nathan Thompson 79
Most Improved? Brett Johnson (he'll get more of a go)
Most Votes in Brownlow? Shane Crawford

Biggest talking point as far as your club is concerned?
This year we'll keep injuries to a minimum, and arrive to play every game. Players and the coach are under the pump to perform

Name 3 players to watch out for?
Luke Hodge, Nathan Thompson, Nick Ries

Biggest strength of your team? Forward/Defence/Midfield It'll be midfield this year, first time in along time

If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be?
Geelong I swear we could play one quarter and still win over them.
Most memorable win?
Essendon and Collingwood both getting thrashed as the Herald Sun screams on the front page "insert team injury woes, Hawks fly high"

What will your team be known for the most in 2003? Fitness

In 15 words or less, describe your coach?
Peter Schwab- Now is the time or time will runout for you. We play for Premierships

 

[grayham]

Originally posted by ramjet
ahh... no, its not. a poster made a claim you have no idea whether true or not yet claim otherwise. my post explains you dont really have any right to suggest that - accidentally or not, you support that in your subsequent post.

I have no idea wether its true or not. I merely said it would be unusual for eddie to not make it public if it were true. Therefore I am sceptical. Even more scepital that that if there was some grain of truth to it, the report posted here is the full story.
Until proven either way, its not worth discussing.

 

[ScouseCat]

Re: Re: 2003 Predictions - Your Own Club

Originally posted by Mcchawk
If you were to be assured of beating ONE team, who would that be?
Geelong I swear we could play one quarter and still win over them.

Unfortunately, I can't argue with you there Mcchawk, especially going by the round 22 game last year.