What is the essence of a football club's existence ?

[Hannabal 4]

I posted in this thread again because I thought you had mellowed towards a more moderate and less hyperbolic conclusion. I was actually excited by this because I thought that perhaps you could see that changing your views to reflect additional information and insight does not make you less of a man, it just helps you learn more so that next time your opinions are better resourced.

Unfortunately I was wrong in this judgement. Perhaps I was right at the time I posted it, but I foolishly left a little bit of bait at the end of my post just to push your buttons (which I see hit the mark as you used it back at me straight away - kudos to me!) when I shouldn't have. I apologise to everyone for that as this thread would have been less tedious without it.

Sigh......carry on.

You misrepresent me by telling me that I "admit" things when I haven't. You incorrectly insinuated I'd changed my position from 'sole reason for a club existing' to "core" reason, which naturally I had to correct; so you then conclude that I'm possibly being to macho to admit I got it wrong. No, you need to improve your comprehension skills.

You've been disingenouos. There's no hyperbole in my views. I believe every word and created a poll with very fair options. And I note that you haven't responded to my last post, but are merely deflecting your own inaccuracies.

This thread isn't about tanking, but I note that some are trying to twist it down that path. I repeat, I want the club to win the flag under the guideline set out by the AFL - which shouldn't need to be stated it's that obvious. Carlton were deemed to have won the flag in '95 fairly and squarely whether one thinks they did or didn't. If they didn't the AFL can/would strip them of it.

To make it clear and to help stop your drammatical sighing:

"The Melbourne Football Club exists solely to win the annual competition it's entered since the nineteenth century. By-products and worthwhile community projects culminate from that very participation, but it's the essence of competing for the flag that is at the core of the very existence of the club and nothing should compromise its quest to win the flag within the fair and legal guidelines set before it by the governing body - the AFL."

Edited July 31, 2009 by Hannibal

[Sir Why You Little 37,046]

We aren't talking about being the best. We're talking solely about winning. Or were.

Being The Best is the Same as Winning in my Book.

[Akum 2,660]

Don't assume you know what I like!

What's the "no" business.

That's exactly what I was pointing out.

Old55, I know this was a while ago, but I was actually supporting your point about the merged club. When I wrote "No, this is a critical point. You don't like it, but it encapsulates the issue" I quoted your post but was addressing other posters who had tried to brush your point aside as irrelevant because it didn't suit them to have to confront it. I think it's THE essential question, that's been dodged but still not adequately confronted. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

Edited July 31, 2009 by Akum

[rpfc 28,447]

Old55, I know this was a while ago, but I was actually supporting your point about the merged club. When I wrote "No, this is a critical point. You don't like it, but it encapsulates the issue" I quoted your post but was addressing other posters who had tried to brush your point aside as irrelevant because it didn't suit them to have to confront it. I think it's THE essential question, that's been dodged but still not adequately confronted. Apologies for the misunderstanding.

The club's existence is the most important thing to me.

But it is not the sole reason for its existence - which is the bloody question.

The sole reason for the existence of the MFC is not its continued existence, it is to win a flag (How many effing times do I have to point out the illogical, circular nature of this view?).

If we merged and won a flag, that would mean nothing to me - a flag is the be-all and end-all, but the MFC (Est. 1858) would not have won it.

If you were to personalise it and say a flag isn't the sole concern for me - that would be true. The club continuing to exist as it is would trump that.

But while the club exists, the sole reason for its existence is to go out there and beat Carlton in Grand Final and see one of the Jacks get up there and give a patronising speech toward Judd and co. and their 'effort on the day.'

[Whispering_Jack 30,173]

Winning is what brings the most happiness and joy to supporters and surely life is all about the pursuit of happiness. So the ultimate aim is undoubtedly to win a premiership. But is that the essence of a football club's existence?

Sport is not simply about winning games or winning premierships just as life should never just be about winning an advantage over others. Within the framework of our game there are several stratas and I think that even a cursory understanding of how football operates would demonstrate this to be the case. I'm uncomfortable therefore that there can or should ever be a sole aim or purpose for a football club's existence. There's a lot more to our game than just winning and you can get enjoyment out of the journey in several ways without becoming too fanatical about the end result.

In saying this I'm not for a single minute denying what the ultimate should be for any football club. The point has been made that if a premiership became unobtainable for a club then there would be no reason for it to continue to exist. That's probably close to the truth and it's one of the reasons why the AFL is becoming less attractive to me.

We no longer have a competition based on a pure sporting principles when the programme of events is determined purely by commercial interests, when player payment rules are openly abused and when clubs are encouraged to fail in order to gain a future advantage in recruiting players.

Which brings us to the current debate about tanking. We all know what it means for the Melbourne Football Club in the context of the next few weeks and in the context of recruiting for the future. Essentially, we get the player most regard as the best young talent in the country or we don't get him. Either way, we'll also get one of the others in the top four or five but if we weren't so transfixed on achieving the ultimate would we be prepared to compromise every principle of sport to achieve that aim?

[52k2 0]

This will be my final post on this site[ thank god a lot of you are saying] so I will have my opinion on the above question.

Please put up with this answer as it will ramble a bit as thats the way my memory is.

The essence of a footy club is different for each person,to me its remembering a lanky kid being given the megaphone to arrange the kids foot races at a family day in the mid 80s outside the G, nobody could understand a word he was saying, his name Jim Stynes. Seeing Tony Campbell play on Dunstall two weeks in a row at full back and beating him both times, we won both games and kicked hawthorn out of the finals.

Allan Jakovich at vic park being dragged in the fist half and the collingwood hags giving him a real hard time coming off, back on in the third qtr. kick a clean half dozen, we win and boy did he go to the boundary and put it up the hags, but best of all walking out of the ground my wife and I singing out loudly 'the collywobbles are back again.

The first game of robbie, we didnt know what we were in for, 1st final against nth in 87 robbie killing them in the gaol square, rd 22 87 at footscray the cheer that went up when people with trannys said dunstall had just put hawks up late in the final qtr. I didnt know how to buy a finals ticket, never had to.

The great times the not so great times, merger, Troy Broaddbridge memorial game ,truely a moving game and the boys didnt let him down. a tear in the eye.

Farmers 9.1 against collingwood, Paul Johnsons run down against bris last year. A young kid called Davey no one would look at, those idiots in the afl area wearing those t shirts with RIVERS written on them. Great times, great club, the pink lady evening, magic really magic, well done and great to see the club become the conscious of the league. We should go back there.

The club is many things to many people, How I would love a flag, but to me the flag isnt the club, its part of the club, so I will disappear into the past and enjoy my little bit of paradise [ my seat at the G].

EVERY WEEK EVERY WIN EVERY YEAR GO DEES.

[Hannabal 4]

This will be my final post on this site[ thank god a lot of you are saying] so I will have my opinion on the above question.

We can all sight memories; I did a few posts back.

A football club in a competition must have a defined agenda. It's great to go on a journey, but I want a clear and absolute destination, otherwise I wouldn't have made that first step down the path. A journey without a stated destination might be fun, but it's a roadmap to nowhere.

Whispering, like others, misses the point. None of the love that you all have, none of the fond memories you enjoy, and none of the history you embrace would have happened without this club each year competing to win a premiership. It can't win every year, but the sole purpose for being in that competition is victory. To allow your expectations to be lowered is to not fully understand why the club competes. You all embrace the history and understand the significance of the premierships, but in the same breath argue that it's not the be all and end all. The MFC is defined by its history and past success.

Liam Jurrah's story thus far is an amazing one. The Pink Lady initiative, etc, are fantastic. But none of this happens without the participation of this club in a cut-throat competition. Unfortunately, our place in that competition seems to escape many of you.

[45HG 1,539]

I feel the biggest problem with this question, or at least its interpretation, is that posters are mixing up the essence of a football club with the way the football club makes them feel.

We all have fantastic memories from our beloved club. Of favourite players and wins, of horrible days and of great passages of play. If we didn't have these events, we wouldn't follow football at all. The essence of a supporter is to support the club all the way.

The essence of the club, however, is not to provide these moments. It should be the pursuit of a premiership. Naturally, memorable moments will ensue.

[H_T 3,047]

The essence of the club, however, is not to provide these moments. It should be the pursuit of a premiership. Naturally, memorable moments will ensue.

You're on fire this week 45h, well summed up in this sentence of yours.

[Slartibartfast 17,297]

Hannibal do you think the current MFC Board and management has a sole objective of winning a flag? If not, what do you think it is?

I'm asking in a practical sense, not a theoretical sense.

[Hannabal 4]

Hannibal do you think the current MFC Board and management has a sole objective of winning a flag? If not, what do you think it is?

I'm asking in a practical sense, not a theoretical sense.

They'd rightly have 100 objectives. So no, their sole objective would not be to win a flag and nor should it be.

The MFC as an entity soley exists to win premierships in the competition in which it is a participant - the AFL.

You can keep trying to turn things anyway you like, but try responding to the hundreds of words I've written in this thread, even on this page. Just scroll up a bit. Tell me what you disagree with, but be sure to use quotes.

As for Board objectives, start a new thread. The governance of the MFC is a different topic to why it exists.

[Slartibartfast 17,297]

They'd rightly have 100 objectives. So no, their sole objective would not be to win a flag and nor should it be.

The MFC as an entity soley exists to win premierships in the competition in which it is a participant - the AFL.

You can keep trying to turn things anyway you like, but try responding to the hundreds of words I've written in this thread, even on this page. Just scroll up a bit. Tell me what you disagree with, but be sure to use quotes.

As for Board objectives, start a new thread. The governance of the MFC is a different topic to why it exists.

Don't get so defensive, I've not "turned" anything. I was merely interested in your opinion and wanted to know if you thought the club was being run the way YOU wanted it, whether you thought we were doing everything we could to win a flag and if not, what. And I'm not talking "minutiae" here but strategies, principles etc. Having not read the thread fully you may have already addressed that. If so just let me know and I'll go hunting through the 200+ replies for the answer. If you haven't got the time or inclination to answer that fine.

I think it's an interesting thread and has clearly got many thinking about the club and the reasons they support it. That is a good thing. But I've been down this road often and I'm totally accepting that the club is made up of a diverse membership and supporter base who's reasons for supporting us vary. And I reckon that we are the same as all other AFL supporter groups with the same diversity, just with lesser numbers which perhaps camouflage our likeness.

BTW the reason I've not read the whole thread is that much is just semantics and I've no doubt we all want to see the MFC win a flag and we've all got a very high "want" factor.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

They'd rightly have 100 objectives. So no, their sole objective would not be to win a flag and nor should it be.

The MFC as an entity soley exists to win premierships in the competition in which it is a participant - the AFL.

You can keep trying to turn things anyway you like, but try responding to the hundreds of words I've written in this thread, even on this page. Just scroll up a bit. Tell me what you disagree with, but be sure to use quotes.

As for Board objectives, start a new thread. The governance of the MFC is a different topic to why it exists.

Blanket statements are rarely true particularly when you use the word "club" which encompasses a broad range of people with different objectives and ideas and the word "solely" together.

I agree that the operation of the club should be geared toward one objective, but not everyone who is a member of the "club" is responsible for operating the club.

I love the topic and I think it raises a great discussion but the question is flawed.

H would I be right in believing that the topic was inspired by your frustration at some supporters not accepting "list management"?

[Hannabal 4]

Blanket statements are rarely true particularly when you use the word "club" which encompasses a broad range of people with different objectives and ideas and the word "solely" together.

I agree that the operation of the club should be geared toward one objective, but not everyone who is a member of the "club" is responsible for operating the club.

I love the topic and I think it raises a great discussion but the question is flawed.

H would I be right in believing that the topic was inspired by your frustration at some supporters not accepting "list management"?

Firstly Dan, you make a blanket statement about a blanket statement ? Alanis Morrisset wrote a song about that.

Secondly, a question can't be "flawed". It's a question. And there were 3 options given which has enabled a healthy response.

Thirdly; to a degree your last observation has some merit, but it's not quite right. If someone believes that 'list management' is cheating and it goes against their principles to embrace such a philosophy then I have no qualms, I mean how could I ? However, some supporters want to win meaningless games that will inhibit our future and this got me thinking "is a flag a be all and end all to some supporters". And as time went on I sensed that a flag was not the highest priority to all supporters. At first I was staggered, but I wasn't completely sure that I was reading the mood correctly, hence the poll.

So, it's not so much an issue of 'list management'; and I think there are different interpretations as to what that means, but more whether supporters understood that ending on 5 wins instead of 4 would greatly impact on the club adversely. Do you see the difference ? One can want to win less than 5, but at the same time be against tanking. Are you with me ?

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Firstly Dan, you make a blanket statement about a blanket statement ? Alanis Morrisset wrote a song about that.

Secondly, a question can't be "flawed". It's a question. And there were 3 options given which has enabled a healthy response.

Thirdly; to a degree your last observation has some merit, but it's not quite right. If someone believes that 'list management' is cheating and it goes against their principles to embrace such a philosophy then I have no qualms, I mean how could I ? However, some supporters want to win meaningless games that will inhibit our future and this got me thinking "is a flag a be all and end all to some supporters". And as time went on I sensed that a flag was not the highest priority to all supporters. At first I was staggered, but I wasn't completely sure that I was reading the mood correctly, hence the poll.

So, it's not so much an issue of 'list management'; and I think there are different interpretations as to what that means, but more whether supporters understood that ending on 5 wins instead of 4 would greatly impact on the club adversely. Do you see the difference ? One can want to win less than 5, but at the same time be against tanking. Are you with me ?

I gave myself a get out by saying "rarely", therefore it's not a blanket statement. I didn't say "always". That's the big difference here.

I really wanted to agree with you but I had a problem with it as I outlined already, but yes you are right that a question can't be flawed, but as a statement it is self evident that it cannot be correct when members of the "club" have voted no.

On your last point I am with you but I don't share your criticism of these people as I believe most of us have the best interests of the club at heart and are wishing to take some moral high ground. I do understand thier dilemna as I take my kids to the footy to barrack for a win and it is a strange and unsettling feeling to not want this at the moment. Like you I understand the importance of winning less than 5 in the long term interests of the club.

Edited August 1, 2009 by dandeeman

[Slartibartfast 17,297]

See what I mean??

[Hannabal 4]

I really wanted to agree with you but I had a problem with it as I outlined already, but yes you are right that a question can't be flawed, but as a statement it is self evident that it cannot be correct when members of the "club" have voted no.

I don't buy the members argument being thrust around - it's a turkey. I'm a member too, but only as a donation. I don't need a membership to see games, which I assume is the main reason people buy one. Functions, etc are great, but they're only a by-product of having a club competing in the AFL.

You're saying that a "statement" is wrong because some [censored] becomes a member of a 150 year old club in 2009 and says in a whiny voice "a flag isn't that important, I just love seeing my team play". Get real.

Every club in the AFL exists in that competition to win it. And they realise that anything less is unsuccessful.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

Are you saying that you are not part of the "club".

[Hannabal 4]

Are you saying that you are not part of the "club".

I told you I'm a member.

Why ?

[rpfc 28,447]

I feel the biggest problem with this question, or at least its interpretation, is that posters are mixing up the essence of a football club with the way the football club makes them feel.

We all have fantastic memories from our beloved club. Of favourite players and wins, of horrible days and of great passages of play. If we didn't have these events, we wouldn't follow football at all. The essence of a supporter is to support the club all the way.

The essence of the club, however, is not to provide these moments. It should be the pursuit of a premiership. Naturally, memorable moments will ensue.

Agree with HT.

Very well put.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I told you I'm a member.

Why ?

If members of the club have voted no, the statement cannot be true, its really that simple. Regardless of whether you think they are flogs or not.

Semantics maybe, but still validates my point that the statement just can't be true.

[Hannabal 4]

If members of the club have voted no, the statement cannot be true, its really that simple. Regardless of whether you think they are flogs or not.

Semantics maybe, but still validates my point that the statement just can't be true.

I don't agree. It doesn't validate anything. It's just an opinion. And almost half the poll say otherwise.

It's as silly as me saying "if members of the club have voted yes it must be true". It's not something the members have to offically vote on.

As you know, my assertion is "The Melbourne Football Club exists solely to win the annual competition it's entered since the nineteenth century. By-products and worthwhile community projects culminate from that very participation, but it's the essence of competing for the flag that is at the core of the very existence of the club and nothing should compromise its quest to win the flag within the fair and legal guidelines set before it by the governing body - the AFL."

Explain why a club member would have issues with the statement, Dan ?

Edited August 1, 2009 by Hannibal

[rpfc 28,447]

Are you saying that you are not part of the "club".

I'm glad we have gone past the 'circular existence' reason (because you can't exist to exist), and past the 'emotional enjoyment' reason (because it is the journey for a flag that brings those emotions) and now we are on to a narrow argument about a few members bringing down the argument because of their disagreement being proof that the "sole reason for the existence is NOT to win flags."

However, touching on 45H's post, we need to think as the club as an abstract entity and not a collection of indivual members (otherwise we would have 31500 different views of the MFC's essence).

As an entity, in the AFL, the sole reason for the existence of the MFC, in these circulstances, is to win flags.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

The MFC is a football club not a social club, our purpose is to play football, win games and ultimately a premiership.

If we were a social club we would have a different objective.

[jabberwocky 2,301]

I don't agree. It doesn't validate anything. It's just an opinion. And almost half the poll say otherwise.

It's as silly as me saying It's not something the members have to offically vote on.

As you know, my assertion is "The Melbourne Football Club exists solely to win the annual competition it's entered since the nineteenth century. By-products and worthwhile community projects culminate from that very participation, but it's the essence of competing for the flag that is at the core of the very existence of the club and nothing should compromise its quest to win the flag within the fair and legal guidelines set before it by the governing body - the AFL."

Explain why a club member would have issues with the statement, Dan ?

The statement is very close to true, if you swapped "club" for" football dept" or "solely" to "predominantly" then I and I would suggest a large majority of others would have picked that option.

Similarly if it was "Every decision made by the footy dept should be geared toward winning a premiership" then that would be another I would agree with unreservedly.

"if members of the club have voted yes it must be true". Its not about that. If you ask for the club's opinion you may well disagree with it but you can't assert that it is not thier opinion.