Just off the topic of the thread here but: you should have stopped when you said "I read this over at BF."

There is no reference, that I can see, to a third year. If you have two years, in a row, of 4 wins or less, you will get a PP before the draft.

That may be complicated by the compromised drafts coming up but BF is often wrong, and I believe they are wrong here.

Fair enough. That was what I thought too, however I've never seen any proof to the contrary. Doesn't mean it exists of course...

I was going to start a thread on this, but the board is cluttered enough.

There is another way of looking at this point of view and that's that the AFL exists to fill a void in the life of the masses. It's an ideal replacement for war and tribal tendecies.

This is actually a great discussion because there are so many different levels it could be viewed at, pity I don't have the time right now to get right into it. On a social level humans naturally desire to form groups, and these groups will always fight with other groups, and then there are the issues within the groups themselves. A football club is a great way to analysis human nature.

Thats true IMO, but warring would only occur when respect was dishonoured, not keeping to ones tribal territory. Or other disrespectfull acts.

Back to AFL, It also provides a stimulus to boredom from doing the same old mundane chors that we put up with in todays material world. A bit of excitement & social mixing, something that we miss living the modern Nuclear family 'role'.

We really miss the village or tribe, (at a subconcious level) IMO.

So, in reality we got Morton, Maric, Watts, Blease... and hopefully Scully and Trengrove.

Had we lost that game, we would instead have Cotchin, Rance*, Watts, Naitanui, Scully and whatever we'd have taken with pick 20ish.

If anyone can deny this officially, I'd love to hear it.

No. If you have 16.5 points for 2 consecutive years, you get the PP.

It rolls on so if you have a crap third year, you will get the Pick 1 n 2 again.

So in essence we lose Morton and Strauss for Cotchin, Rance and Naitanui.

Now: Morton, Grimes, Maric, Watts, Blease, Strauss, Scully*, Trengove*, Pick 18.

Could've been: Cotchin, Grimes, Rance*, Maric, Watts, Naitanui, Blease*, Scully*, Trengove*, Pick 18.

Of course I want to see the MFC win a flag. I think I would cry and laugh at the same time for a couple of weeks. But my support isn't conditional. If it was I wouldn't be here and if I never get to see a flag, well - que sera sera - I'll support them anyway.

Of course I want to see the MFC win a flag. I think I would cry and laugh at the same time for a couple of weeks. But my support isn't conditional. If it was I wouldn't be here and if I never get to see a flag, well - que sera sera - I'll support them anyway.

I agree with this Rojic, my support is unconditional. However, what I want is a club that is ruthless in pursuit of a Premiership, much like the news in Collingwood's pursuit of a PREMIERSHIP CUP with the announcement of their 5 year contracts for Buckley & Malthouse. Collingwood is hell bent on this, their intention is clear. I don't want our club just to make up the numbers and play the odd final.

I also understand Theo's post and his point of view. Although I will donate anyway during Debt demolition month, I will not hold the club to ransom.

I have kids who support Melbourne. I want them to experience Melbourne as a winning team, I'd love for them to see a Premiership. I also don't want it to be another 45 years before the next Premiership, when I could well be 'pushing up daisy's.'

Edited July 29, 200916 yr by High Tower

I think the merger debate was about existence of the Melbourne Football Club not about premierships.

The passion there was for the club to continue to exist.

I'm a long time MFC member, and personally, I have long held the view that I would turn completely away from Australian rules football if I couldn't watch the Melbourne club run around in red and blue colours. It really is that simple. I'd cease to have that "love." I don't really watch any other clubs with any enthusiasm. I'm not a fan of AFL like so many are, I'm more a fan of Melbourne Football Club. I don;t get excited watching Friday night footy unless it's my side playing.

Am I willing to risk the long term future of the club for that desire? Yes, but only to a point. Hence the fact that I went option three. It's just not as simple as saying a flag is the "be all and end all" of following your club.

I like you am only interested in the MFC and I have no great desire to watch other sides play and in fact if we aren't in it, I don't usually sit down and watch the Grand Final. With that in mind I would hate to see the club fold and therefore I think it essential that we win a flag or flags in the near future. Not with a mature side but one that we develop and one that can have sustained success because without that there will be no future for the club that we love.

If this current crop fail to produce the goods and are no more than "Final Eight Fillers" we are in trouble. We have had a couple of chances to win a flag in the last 20 years and have blown it big time and I'm not just talking about 1988 and 2000. If we had won a flag then we would have been taken more seriously but because we didn't and folded so badly in the ones we participated in we are considered a bit of a joke, hence all the derogatory remarks from the commentators.

It may well be that other clubs are strong enough to continue on without a Flag but we are like an ageing body that is getting weaker and weaker and our supporters are getting older and if we don't get an injection of success shortly we may just fade away.

What will we do then Dan, watch golf?

I think the length of time that passes without winning a premiership can change the essence of what a club is about. In our case the fact its been 45 years means we are at the point where a premiership matters most and some of the other elements mentioned begin to have less impact.

I think the length of time that passes without winning a premiership can change the essence of what a club is about. In our case the fact its been 45 years means we are at the point where a premiership matters most and some of the other elements mentioned begin to have less impact.

So Premierships weren't a consideration in years '88-'94 or '98,'00,2004-'06?

I think the merger debate was about existence of the Melbourne Football Club not about premierships.

The passion there was for the club to continue to exist.

Yes it did. Continued to exist to win Premierships.

Edited July 30, 200916 yr by High Tower

I think you're trying to argue for the sake of it. Please yourself.

Is winning a flag the be all and end all for you as a supporter ? That's the topic question.

Now explain where I've been naughty ?

Fair enough. Have been light on sleep lately and grumpy.

To answer your new question, no. A flag is not sufficient.

I think the merger debate was about existence of the Melbourne Football Club not about premierships.

The passion there was for the club to continue to exist.

That's a parallel argument.

H's question: Is winning a flag the sole reason for its existence?

The club exists, therefore, it's sole reason is to become the number one club amongst its peers.

You are saying that isn't true because people are more concerned with the club's existence over a flag.

And that is a circular argument: "Another reason for the existence of the MFC is for it to continue to exist."

Circular.

That's a parallel argument.

H's question: Is winning a flag the sole reason for its existence?

The club exists, therefore, it's sole reason is to become the number one club amongst its peers.

You are saying that isn't true because people are more concerned with the club's existence over a flag.

And that is a circular argument: "Another reason for the existence of the MFC is for it to continue to exist."

Circular.

Maybe Old and some others think that the sole reason clubs exist is so that they don't become extinct

I think the merger debate was about existence of the Melbourne Football Club not about premierships.

The passion there was for the club to continue to exist.

No, this is a critical point. You don't like it, but it encapsulates the issue.

The merged club would have been a shoe-in for premierships. The merged club - in fact, any merged club - would be one of the strongest in the comp, more or less straight away. And the whole concept of a merger was created by people who thought that ultimate success (i.e. premierships) were the sole reason etc. In refusing a merger, Melbourne chose to reject almost certain premierships for something more intangible - the continued independent existence of something that they felt an attachment to.

It begs this question: if Melbourne were TODAY offered a merger by another club - say, for argument's sake, North or Richmond - and Melbourne were going to be the major partner in the merger, would you choose the almost certain premierships that would follow over the continued existence of Melbourne as an independent club? This is a real test of your poll question - is the essence (or sole purpose) of a club's existence just to get premierships (implying that everything must be done to get one) or is there something else that drives a club's existence, whatever it is?

It's a twist on the earlier question posed by Axis of Bob - who would be prepared to sacrifice everything for a premiership, if it meant the club becoming something else? If the very essence of a club is not worth sacrificing in order to get a premiership, then your poll question is answered.

I think also the Fact that we did not improve in 1989, 1995,1999,2001,2003 on the previous years performance is a major reason we are not taken with any seriousness by opposition clubs

Look at Essendon, Hawthorn, Carlton, Collingwood, Brisbane,Geelong. They may have lost grand finals-but the year after they were there having a crack again.

Of all our Years i mentioned above '89 was the only year we played finals again. A very poor record in my eyes.

I Hope Dean Bailey is well aware of this fact...

Nice post Akum.

This is getting more and more complex.

No, this is a critical point. You don't like it, but it encapsulates the issue.

The merged club would have been a shoe-in for premierships. The merged club - in fact, any merged club - would be one of the strongest in the comp, more or less straight away. And the whole concept of a merger was created by people who thought that ultimate success (i.e. premierships) were the sole reason etc. In refusing a merger, Melbourne chose to reject almost certain premierships for something more intangible - the continued independent existence of something that they felt an attachment to.

We're getting off topic here but I don't think this was the reason why the merger was proposed, especially in our case. It was all about survival. Incidentally the only thing Tiger got wrong was he didn't predict that the AFL would financially prop up clubs.

Nice post Akum.

This is getting more and more complex.

No it's not.

It's a given that on-going participation is non-negotiable. The word existence is in the poll for a reason. The sole purpose for competing in a competition that rewards the victor with an award is the award itself. Otherwise why enter the competition ? Why keep on fronting up ?. It's called the "Premiership Season" for a reason. Why does a golfer enter a tournament ? Many famous golfers have often said that if they didn't think they could win a tournament then they wouldn't enter it.

And each year is a separate year. How long does an AFL licence run ? If you enter the 'Premiership Season' your sole ambition should be to win it. Everything else is a subsidiary for your reason of having the club enter this competition.

"Competition"

1. the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc.: The competition between the two teams was bitter.

2. a contest for some prize, honour, or advantage:

Unsurprisingly, not all Melbourne fans have a flag as a non-negotiable. It beggars belief, but I suspected as much.

Fitzroy is a club today with a member base. It doesn't have the sole reason for its existence as a flag because it doesn't belong to a competition. It doesn't have an AFL licence. Our sole aim should always be to win the competition that we enter.

*shakes head*

No it's not.

It's a given that on-going participation is non-negotiable. The word existence is in the poll for a reason. The sole purpose for competing in a competition that rewards the victor with an award is the award itself. Otherwise why enter the competition ? Why keep on fronting up ?. It's called the "Premiership Season" for a reason. Why does a golfer enter a tournament ? Many famous golfers have often said that if they didn't think they could win a tournament then they wouldn't enter it.

And each year is a separate year. How long does an AFL licence run ? If you enter the 'Premiership Season' your sole ambition should be to win it. Everything else is a subsidiary for your reason of having the club enter this competition.

"Competition"

1. the act of competing; rivalry for supremacy, a prize, etc.: The competition between the two teams was bitter.

2. a contest for some prize, honour, or advantage:

Unsurprisingly, not all Melbourne fans have a flag as a non-negotiable. It beggars belief, but I suspected as much.

Fitzroy is a club today with a member base. It doesn't have the sole reason for its existence as a flag because it doesn't belong to a competition. It doesn't have an AFL licence. Our sole aim should always be to win the competition that we enter.

*shakes head*

Hannibal rather than Talk on here, ever thought of being a motivational Coach at the MFC! We need you! this Post inspired me.

Flag FLAG FLAG I want one, two, three, four......................

I didn't answer (A) because of the one word - "sole". The doesn't mean I don't think it should be one of the primary aims, but I can't agree that winning Premierships should be the one and only aim. Being so single-minded in such things opens you up to cheating. Jack Elliot wanted a Premiership so he cheated the salary cap to get one.

And H, I very much doubt Melbourne made Winning the 2008 and 2009 Premierships their sole ambition. Does that mean we should have forfeited?

I answer to the Opening Post: to provide banal time-consuming topics for forums.

Every aspect of a football club should be a subsidiary of, or build up to, winning a Premiership.

Maybe Old and some others think that the sole reason clubs exist is so that they don't become extinct

I am a bit philosphical today; possibly as a result of Dr. Karl's comments about capitalism this morning.

What is the reason for anything to exist? What purpose does existence serve? Need there be any purpose to existence? I abhor religion and am comfortable that the universe is merely accidental. Does this make me happy, sad, hedonistic, anarchistic or any other thing? No, I accept the universe for what it is and take the boon of my accidental life with, hopefully, humility.

If MFC did not exist, it could not win a premiership. So, for the purposes of argument we must assume that MFC exists. What then should be the nature of its existence? If the only purpose of its existence is to win premierships, how then to proceed? If you push the boundarys and cheat the salary cap, you may win a premiership; you will get found out and penalised thus ensuring that you will spend a long time without winning any more. Is this acceptable, or do we say that we have to work within the rules to win our premierships? If we decide that we must work within the rules, we have already compromised our sole purpuse.

Things are never black and white; another reason to hate the filth. We all make compromises, some nescessary, some not, in the hope of moving forward, MFC is no different. It must work within a framework and have the ultimate aim of winning a premiership, but in that sport exists to cater for the more base elements that we find imbue our beings, do not discount the entertainment aspect of the contest as a service to society. MFC's seconday purpose, if you like, is to provide the contest as entertainment. Does this secondary purpose impinge upon its supposed primary purpose? It probably does. Is this acceptable, yes it is.

And H, I very much doubt Melbourne made Winning the 2008 and 2009 Premierships their sole ambition. Does that mean we should have forfeited?

We've used seasons 2008-9 to lay the groundwork for a crack at a Premiership.

This is attempting to win a flag at an even greater level than that seen during the 2004-7 seasons, of attempting to win a flag with bits and pieces.

We're building from the core now, not the twigs.

No, this is a critical point. You don't like it, but it encapsulates the issue.

The merged club would have been a shoe-in for premierships. The merged club - in fact, any merged club - would be one of the strongest in the comp, more or less straight away. And the whole concept of a merger was created by people who thought that ultimate success (i.e. premierships) were the sole reason etc. In refusing a merger, Melbourne chose to reject almost certain premierships for something more intangible - the continued independent existence of something that they felt an attachment to.

It begs this question: if Melbourne were TODAY offered a merger by another club - say, for argument's sake, North or Richmond - and Melbourne were going to be the major partner in the merger, would you choose the almost certain premierships that would follow over the continued existence of Melbourne as an independent club? This is a real test of your poll question - is the essence (or sole purpose) of a club's existence just to get premierships (implying that everything must be done to get one) or is there something else that drives a club's existence, whatever it is?

It's a twist on the earlier question posed by Axis of Bob - who would be prepared to sacrifice everything for a premiership, if it meant the club becoming something else? If the very essence of a club is not worth sacrificing in order to get a premiership, then your poll question is answered.

Don't assume you know what I like!

What's the "no" business.

That's exactly what I was pointing out.