Retired #49: Matt Dea - calls it a day, retiring at season's end - 2/9

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

I hope Kelly and Dea get new numbers for 2017, seeing the large numbers would give too many people undesired flashbacks to anomaly year of 2016.

Very stoked we gained these 2 soldiers out of the circumstances and they in turn gained the chance at reviving and extending their careers. Well done EFC!
 
I hope Kelly and Dea get new numbers for 2017, seeing the large numbers would give too many people undesired flashbacks to anomaly year of 2016.

Very stoked we gained these 2 soldiers out of the circumstances and they in turn gained the chance at reviving and extending their careers. Well done EFC!
IMO Dea will get 17 and Kelly 19.
 
I hope Kelly and Dea get new numbers for 2017, seeing the large numbers would give too many people undesired flashbacks to anomaly year of 2016.

Very stoked we gained these 2 soldiers out of the circumstances and they in turn gained the chance at reviving and extending their careers. Well done EFC!
They had 47 and 49 respectively, which aren't that high. Happy for Kelly to keep the 47 because it's not that unusual, it's still sequential with everyone else's numbers (assuming 31 isn't reassigned and 46 is in play) and assuming he retires again at the end of 2017 then his time at EFC would all be in one number. Dea has a two year contract and is still young, so giving him a normal number would make sense. Having said that, if we go with a full list including a full set of rookies with three category Bs then we'd be up to 48 anyway (or 49 without 31). :p

IMO Dea will get 17 and Kelly 19.
I like that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

They had 47 and 49 respectively, which aren't that high. Happy for Kelly to keep the 47 because it's not that unusual, it's still sequential with everyone else's numbers (assuming 31 isn't reassigned and 46 is in play) and assuming he retires again at the end of 2017 then his time at EFC would all be in one number. Dea has a two year contract and is still young, so giving him a normal number would make sense. Having said that, if we go with a full list including a full set of rookies with three category Bs then we'd be up to 48 anyway (or 49 without 31). :p


I like that.
Only 3 Cat B rookies. So 47 total.
 
3 Cat Bs, 5 Cat As, 40 on the senior list... that makes 48 unless my maths is wrong. Whether we actually do that though is a different story.
It's either:

38 + 6 + 3
39 + 5 + 3
40 + 4 + 3

That's where your maths is wrong :p
 
Damned maths :p so we can use up to 48 on the jumpers if we skip 31, but not 49.

There's no rule saying numbers have to be sequential.

Ben Brown wears 50 because he wants to, no one else at north currently has anything higher than 43. It's just cool and unusual
 
There's no rule saying numbers have to be sequential.

Ben Brown wears 50 because he wants to, no one else at north currently has anything higher than 43. It's just cool and unusual
Sequential numbers are way better tbf.
 
There's no rule saying numbers have to be sequential.

Ben Brown wears 50 because he wants to, no one else at north currently has anything higher than 43. It's just cool and unusual
I know, but the post eth was quoting me on was related to having "normal" numbers, presumably ones that are sequential aside from 31. There's a few people on here that tend to prefer things to fit into patterns and systems like that, although personally I don't care. I like things to be a bit eclectic if that's meaningful to the person who wears it (not that that probably shows much here with all the bloody spreadsheets). I wonder how many people were pissed off by the top-ups having their numbers allocated in order of being signed up, except for Crowley?
 
I know, but the post eth was quoting me on was related to having "normal" numbers, presumably ones that are sequential aside from 31. There's a few people on here that tend to prefer things to fit into patterns and systems like that, although personally I don't care. I like things to be a bit eclectic if that's meaningful to the person who wears it (not that that probably shows much here with all the bloody spreadsheets). I wonder how many people were pissed off by the top-ups having their numbers allocated in order of being signed up, except for Crowley?
I don't think it mattered when Polks was announced, he would have had 50 (his VFL number)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top