TOPIC:

Ten and an age limit so that under 23 gets a game to show what they can do in the bigger games

BC wrote: cheers 42...although I'm not sure the WAFC has done anything quite that bad which would require them to go into the Maccas stand without personal protection...but hey...whatever.

if we don't get the chance to cross swords before year end 42, all the best to yourself, Mrs/Ms/Mr 42 and the entire 42 family for the festive season.

Thanks BC; same to you. By the way it is Mr Swan42.

are you saying you're Mr Swan42 or your poor suffering better half is Mr Swan42? which ever it is I think you should refer to your partner as Saint 42 from hereon in....

the bright side is they have put in a limit -- we may have beaten 15 of them last season

Good to see Mr Hargrave pull out all the stops and go hard on Peel and EP for next year.....LOL.....common sense prevails that numpty Haines says....FMD....yeah not much difference between 5 or 7 games eligibility you muppet.....how about a 10 game eligibility?.....really dropping 17 players to 15 is gonna change anything?....oh well thank god for Steve Hargrave et al eh?....

ArkRoyal wrote: the bright side is they have put in a limit -- we may have beaten 15 of them last season

Wouldn't made any difference. It had to come down to 10.

Roman -- yep agreed; they may not have been in the grand final at all had they played with only ten.