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.

You're darn right. I am saying "thank god" but not because of any views or opinions you expressed on this site but in the way you signed off. It really pisses me when people get on and say "this will be my last post" without explaining themselves. What that says to everyone else on the site is that you're treating everyone else and their opinions with contempt.

So from me ... good riddance and thank god!

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.

It isn't the Melbourne Social Club with a Football Department.

It's the Melbourne Football Club.

Winning AFL flags is its business, its raison detre.

It isn't the Melbourne Social Club with a Football Department.

It's the Melbourne Football Club.

Winning AFL flags is its business, its raison detre.

I don't disagree with any of that at all rpfc.

I don't disagree with any of that at all rpfc.

I think you do.

Winning flags is the MFC's reason for being.

You have taken exception to that idea, have you not?

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.

It might assist you in arguing what the point is if your topic heading and your poll covered the same subject matter. As it stands, you're not even making a point let alone getting anyone else's.

It might assist you in arguing what the point is if your topic heading and your poll covered the same subject matter. As it stands, you're not even making a point let alone getting anyone else's.

I agree Jack. The question in the title and the question in the poll are different questions IMO.

I think you do.

Winning flags is the MFC's reason for being.

You have taken exception to that idea, have you not?

No, but likewise it is the Melbourne Football Club and not the Melbourne Football Team.

If I am being asked from a personal perspective then a flag is what I long to see and it is the reason I support the club, follow it's journey etc. For me it is the raison d'tere.

By putting the word "sole" in there the statement becomes unsupportable for me when clearly there are members of the club who think differently.

I really can't add any more to it other than that for the sake of accuracy I voted 'C' even though I wanted to vote 'a'.

I agree Jack. The question in the title and the question in the poll are different questions IMO.

You've had about 6 pages to make that point, but predictably you just agree with someone else when it's made. As you know, I had trouble getting the poll up because having not done one before I wasn't filling in mandatory spaces - I thought they were options because it's not made clear. For the sake of any ambiguity, not that there'd be much whichever way you look at it, take the thread topic as the question. Choice a) clearly confirms this assertion. I don't think too many people have had trouble understanding what's been asked. Pedants trying to make a 'point' might.

And Jack. I get your "point" and clearly disagree. Do you get anyone elses point ? Have you read all the "points" ? Afterall, more people have voted with the "point" that represents my view than any other.

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.

So with what part might a club member disagree ?

Btw, I used the words "sole" and "club" deliberately. And I gave option C for a reason.

So with what part might a club member disagree ?

Btw, I used the words "sole" and "club" deliberately. And I gave option C for a reason.

I eat, my reason for eating is to be sustained otherwise I will die but it is not my sole reason for eating. Other reasons include

-I enjoy the taste of certain foods.

-I enjoy having a meal with people for social reasons.

You get the analogy.

And I have been over it before, the poll actually answers the question itself. IMO the use of the word sole is the deal breaker for reasons I have already gone into.

Call me pedantic if you like, has a bit to do with my background. I don't expect you to concede and I think I have said enough on it. Still a good thread and a worthwhile discussion.

I eat, my reason for eating is to be sustained otherwise I will die but it is not my sole reason for eating. Other reasons include

-I enjoy the taste of certain foods.

-I enjoy having a meal with people for social reasons.

You get the analogy.

And I have been over it before, the poll actually answers the question itself. IMO the use of the word sole is the deal breaker for reasons I have already gone into.

Call me pedantic if you like, has a bit to do with my background. I don't expect you to concede and I think I have said enough on it. Still a good thread and a worthwhile discussion.

Enjoying yourself and enjoying the taste are all by-products of the necessity of sustenance.

It's your analogy. You eat because you have to, liking it is a bonus.

Feels like I’ve just wandered into the trashy end of what was once a pretty good party...

FWIW, I reckon there’s been some confusion around purpose (winning the flag) and nature (or ‘essence’).

It’s self-evident that the club exists to try to win to the premiership. We’re in a competition after all. But it doesn’t follow that this ambition is the “essence” of the MFC. Otherwise, how are we different to any other club? We may as well be Collingwood, or Carlton, or Freo. But I don’t accept that. We are Melbourne. We are the sum of our successes and failures, yes, but also the people who come together to work towards a common goal - and the way in which they set about achieving it. This includes our history, culture, community engagement and even (gulp) our cruddy facilities.

Which is not to say I want a flag any less, nor that I question whether this is or should be our central driving force.

As Einstein contended, this probably was just a “pissing contest” but a worthwhile one all the same.

NB. For the record, I didn’t vote. Was desperate to avoid being labelled a pedant, but couldn’t quite manage it…

It’s self-evident that the club exists to try to win to the premiership. We’re in a competition after all.

As Einstein contended, this probably was just a “pissing contest” but a worthwhile one all the same.

NB. For the record, I didn’t vote.

You should vote a).

I can [censored] further than you because I have a bigger doodle.

I can [censored] further than you because I have a bigger doodle.

That's the trouble with fundamentalists - in sport, as in religion. You convince yourselves you do

You've had about 6 pages to make that point, but predictably you just agree with someone else when it's made. As you know, I had trouble getting the poll up because having not done one before I wasn't filling in mandatory spaces - I thought they were options because it's not made clear. For the sake of any ambiguity, not that there'd be much whichever way you look at it, take the thread topic as the question. Choice a) clearly confirms this assertion. I don't think too many people have had trouble understanding what's been asked. Pedants trying to make a 'point' might.

And Jack. I get your "point" and clearly disagree. Do you get anyone elses point ? Have you read all the "points" ? Afterall, more people have voted with the "point" that represents my view than any other.

Well to be pedantic, the poll isn't structured very well. Firstly it has to have a purpose ie. what are we trying to identify and why?

Secondly there should be a statement or question that people can people can definitively answer ie. Yes, No, Don't know... etc. There's too much variance in the responses. For instance I could tick all three options because they may not be considered to be mutually exclusive. That is I believe the primary reason for playing footy is to win the premiership, that I also agree there are many other important factors in footy besides winning premierships and that neither is really black and white.

Maybe your next poll should look something like this:

Players play for the 'primary' reason of winning premierships.

1) yes

2) no

3) don't know

4) don't care

Like all free advice consider it money well spent.

You've had about 6 pages to make that point, but predictably you just agree with someone else when it's made.

Actually I alluded to it on page 1. But you're right, it's probably just being pedantic.

I've read some of the responses and been forced to take a closer look at the question.

The thread title, question of the pole and the options provided are not referring to the same issue. Indeed, options a and b are compatible if you get past the yes/no bit at the start. Winning a flag and fabric of the club are not mutually exclusive.

Good thread regardless.

The essence of a football club is the stuff hyphen and jack spoke about.

A flag is the be-all-and-end-all for me as supporter, but all processes directed towards such fit in with that, s does the journey (points a and B)

In my opinion, winning a flag is not the reason for a club's existence. Competeing to win is not the sole reason either. The reason is a complex socio-cultural one - 'reason for existence' must be considered as referring to the creation and maintenance. That question is not one about competing or success, but draws in much larger questions of society, power cultural position etc.

You should vote a). I can [censored] further than you because I have a bigger doodle.

Has this thread's classification just been upgraded to M15+?

I've read some of the responses and been forced to take a closer look at the question.

The thread title, question of the pole and the options provided are not referring to the same issue. Indeed, options a and b are compatible if you get past the yes/no bit at the start. Winning a flag and fabric of the club are not mutually exclusive.

Good thread regardless.

The essence of a football club is the stuff hyphen and jack spoke about.

A flag is the be-all-and-end-all for me as supporter, but all processes directed towards such fit in with that, s does the journey (points a and B)

In my opinion, winning a flag is not the reason for a club's existence. Competeing to win is not the sole reason either. The reason is a complex socio-cultural one - 'reason for existence' must be considered as referring to the creation and maintenance. That question is not one about competing or success, but draws in much larger questions of society, power cultural position etc.

Not again!

The reason to exist can't be to 'continue to exist.'

You exist, therefore you have a purpose.

That's it, I'm out of this thread.

It's done.

Now let's go and lose today and try and win that flag.

You should vote a).

I can [censored] further than you because I have a bigger doodle.

Well hello there.

If that's the criterion the horse wins.

Thanks for the compliment!

apparently when you walk into the PORT ADELAIDE social rooms, theres a sign on the wall,it states, WE EXIST TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS, and they have won plenty.

How do we feel today, H?

How do we feel today, H?

I assume he feels vindicated.

After what happened yesterday, there is little doubt that our current administration is about one thing, and one thing only, premierships.

Well having a look at this thread now, like most threads in any typical discussion forum that exceedes 6 or so pages, it's usually good for a laugh. There's been some interesting logic thrown around. Some of it cogent. Some not so. And I think there's been a bit of taking the odd argument out of context on both sides. There has been some top shelf semantic acrobatics too.

Having read through it all I think there are some good points being put forward by both sides. But I think some of the conclusions that are being drawn concerning the attitude of some supporters of this club, don't follow from the question that has been posed.

It's been a bit of a semantic merry-go-round.

But I will join in. Here's my attempt to reconcile the issue.

Obviously, the phrase that has caused most of the contention is "sole reason for a club's existence." Now having read through the thread I feel this is a clumsy phrasing that doesn't best reflect the argument that is being made.

Likewise, I think the terms "primary reason", "core reason" or "major reason" do not adequately capture a football club's objective that is to win premierships. I used the term "primary" myself in an earlier post but felt that it was unsatisfactory for the point I was hoping to make.

So the statement I feel best defines the argument is:

Winning premierships is the fundamental reason for a club's existence.

Fundamental. This recognises on the one hand, that football club's do have a number of different objectives. Not merely the one. Not a single or 'sole reason' for existing. And it also recognises that a club's objective to win a premiership is something more than just one of many objectives it may have, even if it is considered clearly the most important. It is in the end, the essential reason a football club exists and competes. It is one of many objectives a club has, but it is the fundamental one from which all other objectives are made possible.

If the question was asked "Is a club's fundamental reason for existing, to win premierships?" I think it would best reflect the argument that is being made, and I also think the result of the poll would be very different. I would be surprised if anybody denied this to be true.

apparently when you walk into the PORT ADELAIDE social rooms, theres a sign on the wall,it states, WE EXIST TO WIN PREMIERSHIPS, and they have won plenty.

Port Adelaide's SANFL record of success is truly astounding. In their 126 years of competition, they have in 97 of those years, finished in the top 3. Incredible.

.....because you can't exist to exist.

You've clearly never lived in Morwell.

In other sports news:

Ferrari have conceded that they cannot win the 2009 championship and are focusing on developing their car for 2010.

Fulham are hoping to do well in Europe this year and again finish top 7 to qualify for the Europa League.

Pim Verbeek wants us to make Round 2 of the World Cup in 2010.

The Cleveland Indians just traded their best player to the Boston Red Sox.

It's lucky we don't apply the more extreme version of the arguments applied in the 7 preceding pages, otherwise each of these teams would be immediately disbanded because they are not trying to win the premiership/championship.