I agree that the playing group are (or at least should be) focused soley on winning games and ultimately a flag or two. I guess I'm trying to define a "Football Club" as more than just the playing group. I'm relatively new to Melbourne so the past 40 years without a flag did not distract me in making my choice of which AFL team to follow for life.

Exactly. You can't answer the question without defining the "Melbourne Football Club" first. If the football club consists of all the different professionals and volunteers, it members and supporters and seeing some members of the said football club have voted "no" and "maybe" then the questioned is answered.

I've not read the whole thread but it seems to me that a lot of this is semantics.

Question 1. Does anyone here desperately want MFC to win a flag and believe that every decision made should enhance that (on the proviso that all things we do are legal)?

Answer. yes

And I think that is the essence of Hannabals question.

Question 2. Do people think that the club provides other benefits outside winning a flag?

Answer: Yes

And here is the rub.

Question 3: If you knew MFC had no chance of winning a flag would you still support us and what would your football involvement/interest be?

Answer: the debate we are having.

My answer is that I would still follow footy as I love the sport but the proposition would be quite different and not nearly as important to me. It would be an interest rather than a passion.

People who want to go into work on mondays to stick it up their colleagues because their team won, a team that owes nothing to that person, is fairly typical of the attitude of today's "give me everything, and give it to me now" generation. We see them on this forum.

Those of you on this thread who have talked about the reason football clubs exist, the social fabric, the fabric that supports a cohesive and physically and mentally healthy community have got it right.

But when we get to professional football, it's a movie, it's a circus, it's a financial business for the funding stakeholders who could not give a shite for the people on the oval, the support staff, or the small people who wait for those on-field gladiators safe return. Yeah, they earn $400k per year for their short sporting lives so everyone's fair game.

I can be a fat lay-about totally useless [censored] and expect the club I have spent 2 bob on to win a premiership. And if they don't, then I can pitch [censored] all over these forums.

For the last Brisbane Lions premiership, it's ironical, where it is now common knowledge that 14 vials of pain killing drugs were used to get the players on the ground, and it can be swept aside as an issue, because those lazy sons-of-[censored] on their couches, demand success at any cost.

When you clowns talk about what is the essence of a football clubs existence, decide if AFL is distinctly different from all other levels. Then have a think about where that leads the future of the game. Then think about the ever decreasing number of Australian rules teams in Victoria - particularly those of you who can see that the planet exists outside the boundaries of metropolitan Melbourne.

Oh, and also, it's only a sport. There are things more important.

The fact that premierships are wanted, but not in my mind required at any expense, will no doubt in your minds make me a 50 year barracker of the MFC who has not got the minerals to seek success.

You could not be more wrong. It's just that I can see the game, the skills, the work, the sacrifice, and I am not swayed by manic masturbation or other immediate self satisfaction, or ego trips.

What on earth are you on about? Nearly half the voters are clowns are they? Get a grip!

Rubbish being the best does not mean you have to cheat.

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

H: Your latest post clarifies much. At odds with the OP IMO.

Hannibal, your argument has changed.

You originally said that the sole reason why the club existed was to win premierships.

Now you say that the core reason why the club existed was to win premierships.

I agree with your amended argument, because winning a premiership is one of the most important goals demanded by the club's members. But I strongly disagree with your original argument (as stated to me in the other thread and also in the OP of this thread) that it is the 'sole' reason. You even admitted it was not the sole reason when you said:

Play fair, be fair, and win a flag. Do all within your power (legally) to win the competition

As you say, winning the flag is the main goal but winning the flag isn't the only criterion because it must be won fairly and legally. Why? Because that's what the club's members demand and, as a membership organisation that exists primarily to serve its members, they are the only ones that matter.

Membership organisations exist to serve its members. For an AFL football club, its major goal is almost always to win a flag because that's what its members want. But it isn't the only thing that they want - just ask John Elliott. Therefore it is not the sole reason for its existence.

That's what I've been trying to tell you from the start, so it's good to see you expanding your vision. Kudos to you.

That's what I've been trying to tell you from the start, so it's good to see you expanding your vision. Kudos to you.

Yes well done H.

This type of open discourse therapy clearly has value.

What do you reckon Tim D?

Hannibal, your argument has changed.

You originally said that the sole reason why the club existed was to win premierships.

Now you say that the core reason why the club existed was to win premierships.

You even admitted it was not the sole reason when you said:

I have no doubt that winning a flag is the sole reason an AFL club exists. What you've highlighted in your post in no way changes my argument and nor does it insinuate that I begrudgingly admit anything. And if you're not sure whether I've modified my views then ask; don't tell me what I've "admitted".

It's a given that playing within the rules set out by the competition's organisers and main body is paramount. And when I say "it's a given" I mean it doesn't need to be stated. Legally you can't win a competition unless you've done so within the parameters set out by the governing body. Ergo it didn't need to be stated and members' wishes are automatically acceded to. Winning a flag within those guidelines is the only reason for an AFL club's existence within that competition.

Btw, where do I say that it's the "core" reason ? I've written a lot of words on this thread, so I may well have, but let me confirm that in no way do I shy away from my OP. How could I as it makes perfect sense.

Btw, you said that you were "done" earlier when you clearly weren't. Kudos to you.

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.

It's a Grand Old FLAG.

It's a High Flying FLAG....

It's the Emblem for me & For You......

Our Great Song gives us the answer. We exist to win the Ultimate yearly Prize, by doing that great History & Frienships are formed inside & outside the club.

But the Aim is always to win that Flag.

Question 3: If you knew MFC had no chance of winning a flag would you still support us and what would your football involvement/interest be?

Answer: the debate we are having.

My answer is that I would still follow footy as I love the sport but the proposition would be quite different and not nearly as important to me. It would be an interest rather than a passion.

That's a good summary, although question 3 is just a hypothetical situation because as long as we survive we will always have an opportunity.

Your point about passion though is indeed interesting, and without wanting to put word's into H's mouth I think he may be trying to say what I'm about to post. I don't believe that the MFC has anywhere near the amount of passionate supporters as other clubs like Collingwood, Essendon or Carlton and this is a major reason why we've been largley unsuccessful over the last 40 years. Our supporter base in comparison is apathetic, we've been satisfied with mediocre, average performances.

AoB - Are you seriously trying to tie up H with the notion that he wanted to win the flag 'at all costs'?

You are putting words in his, and my and others, mouth if you are implying that having a 'sole purpose' indicates moral bankruptcy - that we would cheat to win that flag.

The sole reason for the existence of the MFC is to spend sh!tloads of other people's money and try to win the AFL Premiership (and adhere to the rules of the competition as per required of every participant).

And everyone can enjoy the ride as we try to achieve it.

AoB - Are you seriously trying to tie up H with the notion that he wanted to win the flag 'at all costs'?

You are putting words in his, and my and others, mouth if you are implying that having a 'sole purpose' indicates moral bankruptcy - that we would cheat to win that flag.

The sole reason for the existence of the MFC is to spend sh!tloads of other people's money and try to win the AFL Premiership (and adhere to the rules of the competition as per required of every participant).

And everyone can enjoy the ride as we try to achieve it.

Is losing on purpose cheating?

Is losing on purpose cheating?

I reckon it's been mentioned a thousand times over the last couple of months. Players don't tank. So how can they lose on purpose?

And when I say "it's a given" I mean it doesn't need to be stated. Legally you can't win a competition unless you've done so within the parameters set out by the governing body. Ergo it didn't need to be stated and members' wishes are automatically acceded to. Winning a flag within those guidelines is the only reason for an AFL club's existence within that competition.

None of my business, but where do the Blues circa their last flag come into this? They broke the rules, cheated, and they have kept their flag. The general public are well aware they cheated to get it, but the records show it didn't go to the runner up... Would you condone this behaviour if a couple of years after a flag it was found out we breached cap rules to get it? Legally they DID win... Though, I'm not completely sure about that. Happy to be corrected.

Personally, as you are quite clearly well in control of the English language, I don't think it's too much to expect that we can be a bit pedantic about the specifics of what words you use, as it seems you don't tend to write ANYTHING that's not well considered. If you were Y_M, I'd have glossed over this ages ago.

If I said to you we were guaranteed a flag next year, but we had to move interstate the following year, or perhaps fold as a club, would that make you happy as per your "sole" reason?

As far as I'm concerned, if your position is "The sole reason... a flag" with the "givens" being that the club survive in it's current form, and it does it within the rules...

Then sure. And I think you'll find many more MFC fans agree with that than you think. If the subtext is what I alluded in an earlier post, then we're not talking about whether or not fans want a flag more than anything else, we're talking about what those fans BELIEVE will get us there. Some believe that winning more than 4 gets us closer... No doubt about it, they are wrong. Ill-educated, inexperienced or naive... or a combination of those... but just because they don't know any better doesn't mean they want a flag any less.

Anyhoo. I think this topic has done its dash. Sorry to hijack your conversation... Good topic.

Is losing on purpose cheating?

Are we deliberately losing?

Or are we minimising our chances of winning by playing kids, not playing the mildly injured, and playing blokes in foreign positions.

It may be semantics, but is a kid entering the British Open to get some experience, but knowing he has no chance, deliberately losing?

Because we have been employing the tactics of 'tanking' ever since ND played Newton in his last game, and Garland and Weetra played in DB's first.

So I guess the question is: Is 'list managment' or 'player development' (something DB recently stated as more important than winning) cheating?

It isn't, so we aren't.

I reckon it's been mentioned a thousand times over the last couple of months. Players don't tank. So how can they lose on purpose?

Players don't tank and never will but the football department can. Thats still tanking last time i checked

Players don't tank and never will but the football department can. Thats still tanking last time i checked

What is Wrong with finding out whether a few young kids can Hack the Battle, near the end of the season when all is done, & the club is already planning out the next Pre season & season Proper?

Why do many People Perceive This as cheating? I call it knowing all the pieces on your chess board. Being Smart.

Cheating is Rorting the Salary Cap or Performance Enhancing Drugs.

Please do not put our Footy Dept in those Categories.

Players don't tank and never will but the football department can. Thats still tanking last time i checked

We have had 'the cue in the rack' (employing the tactics of 'list management' or 'tanking') since ND's last game.

I just don't know why we would want to pull the cue out now?

I reckon it's been mentioned a thousand times over the last couple of months. Players don't tank. So how can they lose on purpose?

Half-witted answer - they're not the only factor involved, or even the main factor.

Are we deliberately losing?

Or are we minimising our chances of winning by playing kids, not playing the mildly injured, and playing blokes in foreign positions.

It may be semantics, but is a kid entering the British Open to get some experience, but knowing he has no chance, deliberately losing?

Because we have been employing the tactics of 'tanking' ever since ND played Newton in his last game, and Garland and Weetra played in DB's first.

So I guess the question is: Is 'list managment' or 'player development' (something DB recently stated as more important than winning) cheating?

It isn't, so we aren't.

politician's answer - too cute by half.

This whole thread is about this:

Yes a flag is the ultimate.

Yes we should do everything to win one.

But what does everything include?

- Losing on purpose to get the priority pick?

- Cheating on the salary cap?

- Taking performance enhancing drugs?

- Merging with another club?

People draw the line at different points.

What is Wrong with finding out whether a few young kids can Hack the Battle, near the end of the season when all is done, & the club is already planning out the next Pre season & season Proper?

Why do many People Perceive This as cheating? I call it knowing all the pieces on your chess board. Being Smart.

Cheating is Rorting the Salary Cap or Performance Enhancing Drugs.

Please do not put our Footy Dept in those Categories.

Nothing is wrong with trying new players but its a fine line between list manegenment and tanking. Carlton in 07 crossed that line. I supose we find out over the next few weeks if melbourne have the curry to cross that line. I hope they do!

Half-witted answer - they're not the only factor involved, or even the main factor.

Poor response.

The player's are the main factor. They're the one's who take the field, get the ball and kick the goals. They are the one's competing and determining the outcome of the game. The coach can make changes for positions, and yes can create different match -ups that may or may not suit, that could determine a result, but it's not the main factor.

It's still 18 v 18 on the field.

Nothing is wrong with trying new players but its a fine line between list manegenment and tanking. Carlton in 07 crossed that line. I supose we find out over the next few weeks if melbourne have the curry to cross that line. I hope they do!

How does a Team actually "Cross that Line"...We have 40 odd Players on our list who are paid by the club.

As long as they are named in the Team on Thursday night, & run out onto the ground as per the list 30 mins before The Bounce.

The Coach can throw them around as he pleases. That is his Match Day Job.

The Media has coined this Cheating. IT IS NOT CHEATING.

It is in fact finding out the long term capabilities of your list, & also working out what the Team may be Lacking before a draft.

What is wrong with that?? I call it LONG TERM SMARTS, & always will.

Poor response.

The player's are the main factor. They're the one's who take the field, get the ball and kick the goals. They are the one's competing and determining the outcome of the game. The coach can make changes for positions, and yes can create different match -ups that may or may not suit, that could determine a result, but it's not the main factor.

It's still 18 v 18 on the field.

B: Spencer Jetta Newton

HB: Jamar Petterd Hughes

C: Valenti Miller Johnson

HF: Warnock Bartram Rivers

F: Buckley Bruce Bail

R: Jones Robertson Zomer

B: Spencer Jetta Newton

HB: Jamar Petterd Hughes

C: Valenti Miller Johnson

HF: Warnock Bartram Rivers

F: Buckley Bruce Bail

R: Jones Robertson Zomer

Now you are being cute...

Every team goes into every season with 44 capable footy players.

And every week you have to play 22 of them.

I would like us to "tank" or "list manage."

I'm a not a cheater.

I'm not being cute anymore, hopefully?

Tanking DEFINITELY isn't the essence of a club's existence.