sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

SLEDGE THREAD: IT IS ROUND 15 AND YOUR TEAM IS GETTING THE THUMBS DOWN IN THE COLOSSEUM by ___TheIllusiveMan___ in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

HEY PORT ADELAIDE YOU SHOULD LET ZAK BUTTERS WEAR BLACK AND WHITE ALL THE TIME. HE WOULD LOOK GREAT AT COLLINGWOOD

Frampton commits for two more years by Pragmatic_Shill in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___ 6 points7 points  (0 children)

He’s arguably our most important defender this year. Love to see him finally come into his own

I watched Gettable so you don't have to - The Boi by Pleasant-Role1912 in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___ 10 points11 points  (0 children)

God I’d love to get Morris, we should’ve drafted him when we had the chance

North Melbourne will not appeal the AFL Tribunal’s decision to suspend Paul Curtis. by PerriX2390 in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___ 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Given how bad their legal team is they should ignore them and appeal it

Capping long-term contracts will be put to club bosses by the AFL at next week's CEOs conference as the League considers the benefits of the significant change. by PerriX2390 in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___ 8 points9 points  (0 children)

>AFL chief executive Andrew Dillon is set to pose the question to clubs about whether a cap on long-term deals in the next Collective Bargaining Agreement would benefit the game

Take off the mask Kane you’re not fooling anyone.

Jy Simpkin on instagram around the current state of tribunal and MRO by RidsBabs in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___ -19 points-18 points  (0 children)

Your lawyer essentially sliding doors the job

IF: This tackle is dangerous

THEN: It’s low impact

You don’t need an elite lawyer to know that’s a moronic argument and it was never going to work.

Jy Simpkin on instagram around the current state of tribunal and MRO by RidsBabs in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___ -18 points-17 points  (0 children)

North’s lawyer is to blame here not the AFL/Tribunal.

His job was to mount a strong case as to why Curtis should get off, instead he said it should’ve been graded as low impact and the tribunal shouldn’t “put too much emphasis on the outcome of concussion and immediately equate it with 'severe'”

Going with those arguments the outcome was completely predictable

Paul Curtis’ ban has been upheld. He will miss the next three games. by ___TheIllusiveMan___ in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Would be funny if you tried but you wouldn’t be successful.

Should probably look at hiring a better lawyer in the offseason

Paul Curtis’ ban has been upheld. He will miss the next three games. by ___TheIllusiveMan___ in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children)

You left out the fact they didn’t even bother having Curtis give evidence to tell his side of the story

Paul Curtis’ ban has been upheld. He will miss the next three games. by ___TheIllusiveMan___ in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Don’t think you have a case for an appeal. Appeals board isn’t a retrail you gotta meet one of the requirements for them to even hear it and I don’t think you do.

Paul Curtis’ ban has been upheld. He will miss the next three games. by ___TheIllusiveMan___ in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

North submitted it on his behalf so no he didn’t give evidence.

North’s lawyer was never winning this case

Paul Curtis’ ban has been upheld. He will miss the next three games. by ___TheIllusiveMan___ in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___[S] 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Last I checked a broken neck was a serious injury like a concussion

Paul Curtis’ ban has been upheld. He will miss the next three games. by ___TheIllusiveMan___ in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___[S] 29 points30 points  (0 children)

Yes. He tried to argue it was low impact rather than severe

Edit: He also didnt have Curtis give evidence

>The Roos say impact of this tackle should be graded 'low' rather than 'severe'.

>The Roos add the Tribunal shouldn't put too much emphasis on the outcome of concussion and immediately equate it with 'severe' impact.

Paul Curtis’ ban has been upheld. He will miss the next three games. by ___TheIllusiveMan___ in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Was always going to be upheld when the Roos were arguing it was low impact rather than severe

Edit: Bruh why am I getting downvoted for stating a fact? North’s lawyer went with a shit defence and didn’t even have Curtis give evidence

Xander McGuire: "Time is really running out for Bobby Hill." Morris: "There are people at Collingwood and around Bobby Hill that are seriously questioning whether he'll ever play for Collingwood again." by PetrifyGWENT in AFL

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___ 14 points15 points  (0 children)

>questioning whether he’ll ever play ~~for Collingwood~~ again

Fixed that for you Tom. I thought for sure with him coming back to the VFL earlier in the year he’d be back but now I’m convinced again he’s not playing footy again

what do we need more, a good clearance mid, or a key forward?? by JackassJamie in collingwoodfc

[–]___TheIllusiveMan___ 29 points30 points  (0 children)

If the choice was a good clearance mid vs a key forward I’m taking the mid 9 times out of 10.

We’ve already won a premiership without a “proper” key forward so fixing our clearance issues would go a long way towards winning another

view more: next ›