Round 2, 2009, Fremantle lost to Essendon
First Quarter: the Winners capitalised on their ownership of the means of production by securing a significant share of the board's business through the delivery of the goods. The Losers manufactured limited partnership as their stagnant business slumped to significant losses as the class in their structure struggled with itself.
Second Quarter: developing new resources proved profittable for the Winners who managed to hold on to a significant proportion of their gains after their industry slumped, fractionally. An early surge fom the Losers gave remaining creditors a boost in their interest as the deficit was slashed only to later be reinstated on the board.
Third Quarter: the Winners, once the recession had eased, negotiated any of their competitors' increase in output with the competent management of the means and the distribution of manufacture. The Losers failed to produce the goods and warranted observers transferring their interest to more viable options in the future.
Fourth Quarter: due to a positive outlook across the board and an individualistic pursuit of partnership, the Winners forged ahead with the advantage they managed on the board. The negative outlook of observers given value, the Losers struggled with their lack of hard-working business and a distinct lack of accounting for their competitors.
Fifth Quarter: the Winners attempted to defraud observers through a scheme to apportion a lack of productivity from their targets as the cause for their diminished margin. The Losers gave an account of their loss that amounted to a lack of responsible ownership of the results of their lack of industry and classless structure.
Second Quarter: developing new resources proved profittable for the Winners who managed to hold on to a significant proportion of their gains after their industry slumped, fractionally. An early surge fom the Losers gave remaining creditors a boost in their interest as the deficit was slashed only to later be reinstated on the board.
Third Quarter: the Winners, once the recession had eased, negotiated any of their competitors' increase in output with the competent management of the means and the distribution of manufacture. The Losers failed to produce the goods and warranted observers transferring their interest to more viable options in the future.
Fourth Quarter: due to a positive outlook across the board and an individualistic pursuit of partnership, the Winners forged ahead with the advantage they managed on the board. The negative outlook of observers given value, the Losers struggled with their lack of hard-working business and a distinct lack of accounting for their competitors.
Fifth Quarter: the Winners attempted to defraud observers through a scheme to apportion a lack of productivity from their targets as the cause for their diminished margin. The Losers gave an account of their loss that amounted to a lack of responsible ownership of the results of their lack of industry and classless structure.
