I think Denham, from the little I've read or heard, is close to the mark and it's getting a bit much for some.

Here are some observations and facts:

1. We appeared to tank in at least two years (a tactic I support with some misgivings).

2. We have performed poorly on field for some time, 2006 was the last reasonable year we had.

3. We have had to go begging to our members to rid the club of debt as well as getting additional funding from the AFL.

4. We were deplorable during but particularly after the Geelong game, reinstating a sacked CEO, sacking a coach who had been told he'd get an extension, being media driven in our process and dismissing Bailey in the most deplorable of ways.

5. We lost our marquee player to another club.

6. Our president has now made the most inappropriate comments about a past coach that about 3 months ago he was about to extend and who the current Board extended two years ago. Suggesting Bailey was not "serious" was an insult to him, his staff and the whole club. I can only put such a rank comment down to his illness.

Now I'm not suggesting that we haven't made some great advances in many areas of the club but from an independent point of view, and especially from an opposition supporters point of view we haven't done much to hang our hat on lately.

I'd suggest people toughen up. Denham is giving us publicity and that is a good thing.

And what would have you done differently Greg? Clearing the debt was good business, not begging in my eyes. From there the tree grows. Lots of other clubs are quite envious of debt demolition and how efficient it has been.

I think Denham, from the little I've read or heard, is close to the mark and it's getting a bit much for some.

Here are some observations and facts:

1. We appeared to tank in at least two years (a tactic I support with some misgivings).

2. We have performed poorly on field for some time, 2006 was the last reasonable year we had.

3. We have had to go begging to our members to rid the club of debt as well as getting additional funding from the AFL.

4. We were deplorable during but particularly after the Geelong game, reinstating a sacked CEO, sacking a coach who had been told he'd get an extension, being media driven in our process and dismissing Bailey in the most deplorable of ways.

5. We lost our marquee player to another club.

6. Our president has now made the most inappropriate comments about a past coach that about 3 months ago he was about to extend and who the current Board extended two years ago. Suggesting Bailey was not "serious" was an insult to him, his staff and the whole club. I can only put such a rank comment down to his illness.

Now I'm not suggesting that we haven't made some great advances in many areas of the club but from an independent point of view, and especially from an opposition supporters point of view we haven't done much to hang our hat on lately.

I'd suggest people toughen up. Denham is giving us publicity and that is a good thing.

If we concede Melbourne tanked then Bailey was not a serious coach.

Anyone who sees the new coaching regime in operation, even in these early days, knows that it's far more professional and serious than what we've had in the years when we were a failure on the field. Jim is rightfully entitled to talk up the current coaching department and I admire him for it. Those who want to think back in terms of those dark moments when we lost games by 186 points and celebrate that achievement are the ones who should harden up.

What do you think of Denham's views on Wona? What would you do if you had to decide on who to keep on your list and a player was three weeks late keeping an appointment with surgeon who operated on his ankle? Even his manager accepted Melbourne made the right decision.

Denham is ill-informed and fighting someone else's battle. He needs to try to understand all sides, not just the one he's being fed.

6. Our president has now made the most inappropriate comments about a past coach that about 3 months ago he was about to extend and who the current Board extended two years ago. Suggesting Bailey was not "serious" was an insult to him, his staff and the whole club. I can only put such a rank comment down to his illness.

''It looks like we have a coach now that is really serious and he is not going to relax,'' Stynes said yesterday.

''He is not going to sit back and let it all happen. He is going to create it - it's good.''

Where does he suggest that Bailey was not serious? All I read is that Neeld must be very intense about achieving success with this group of footballers now. Not achieving competitiveness.

Edited November 3, 201113 yr by Mallee Bull

And what would you do if you found out? Serious keyboard warrior stuff.

No Denham is the keyboard warrior as a hack Australian journalist and a negative taunter on radio.

If i met him personally i would have no trouble giving him all 8 cylinders of my rage, don't you worry. I spent 10 years working with journalists. They do not intimidate me at all, particularly the hack ones.

Denham is ill-informed and fighting someone else's battle. He needs to try to understand all sides, not just the one he's being fed.

Is this a KB/Schwab kind of battle ?

''It looks like we have a coach now that is really serious and he is not going to relax,'' Stynes said yesterday.

''He is not going to sit back and let it all happen. He is going to create it - it's good.''

Where does he suggest that Bailey was not serious? All I read is that Neeld must be very intense about achieving success with this group of footballers now.

That's how I read it.

If we concede Melbourne tanked then Bailey was not a serious coach.

I dont quite agree. His job was as I think we can all see now , in the first two years was to maximise draft pix. I.e To tank. Call it by any name you like...what IS...IS.

But did that make him any less serious as a coach ? I fail to see the corelation. I think he was as serious a coach as any. Serious -yes; successful-no.

Anyone who sees the new coaching regime in operation, even in these early days, knows that it's far more professional and serious than what we've had in the years when we were a failure on the field. Jim is rightfully entitled to talk up the current coaching department and I admire him for it. Those who want to think back in terms of those dark moments when we lost games by 186 points and celebrate that achievement are the ones who should harden up.

What do you think of Denham's views on Wona? What would you do if you had to decide on who to keep on your list and a player was three weeks late keeping an appointment with surgeon who operated on his ankle? Even his manager accepted Melbourne made the right decision.

Denham is ill-informed and fighting someone else's battle. He needs to try to understand all sides, not just the one he's being fed.

I think Dehnam is ...well , agenda driven. Its hard enough at times getting those on the list who turn up and train and get selected to even give a bras razzooo when playing let alone someone who obviosul feels conflicted and out of sorts , so much so that he just ups and goes walkabout. Wona has his own issues to deal with and I , as would all, wish him allthe best. Hope he gets it al together and he can continue to enjoy his life. But as Ive said often this business, AFL footy , is not about being some benevolent hospice. Its first and foremost a business. Its business is successful football. if someone doesnt want to be part of it, so be it. You can only do so much before you turn your attention to the well being of ALL.

I can only agree with those that suggest Aussies contribution was far greater in 'the eyes' of many than it actually was. Thats not to denigrate , only to foster perspective. We all want our 'characters' ; we all want our club to have its heroes etc. He was great to watch , but in reality he was hardly there. The writing was on teh wall, in very big letters. The club made the correct decision , the only decision. Not everyone makes it. Thats life.

Here are some observations and facts:

Ok, this is where you went wrong - 'observations and facts'?

Just meld them together?

I agree we were a basket case but point 4 is a vigorous meld, point 5 is not true, and point 6 is an unfair extrapolation of someone's word.

Is this a KB/Schwab kind of battle ?

Could be, i could imagine KB getting others to take the heat whilst he smiles and drinks his tea. People come onto HIS show. But i think deep down Denham has a gripe against the MFC for whatever reason.

''It looks like we have a coach now that is really serious and he is not going to relax,'' Stynes said yesterday.

Where does he suggest that Bailey was not serious?

Here.

Not saying it is, but could easily be interpreted as a backhander at Bailey.

Here.

Not saying it is, but could easily be interpreted as a backhander at Bailey.

Any sentence can have a change of meaning by moving the inflections. Rule one in hack journalism school that one. Not having a go at you CB by the way.

Clearing the debt was good business, not begging in my eyes.

You missed the point. he was not saying that its not good for the Club but the Club did go begging members who were generous enough to pay off the debt.

If we concede Melbourne tanked then Bailey was not a serious coach.

If we concde Melbourne tanked then MFC are not a serious club. Its naive to think that the process to play for draft picks was the decision of the coach alone. Absolutely dreamtime. Schwab, Stynes and the Board were part of that. And I agree that we did it at the time.

No Denham is the keyboard warrior as a hack Australian journalist and a negative taunter on radio.

If i met him personally i would have no trouble giving him all 8 cylinders of my rage, don't you worry. I spent 10 years working with journalists. They do not intimidate me at all, particularly the hack ones.

Hell that would have Denham seriously quaking in his boots. Given you spent so long with journalists, did they ever tell you war stories of confrontations with nutcases in the general community.

I am sure Denham wont intimidate you especially if you have his address and appear on his doorstep. He realise that you sure are one tough cookie. Keep punching legend.

''It looks like we have a coach now that is really serious and he is not going to relax,'' Stynes said yesterday.

''He is not going to sit back and let it all happen. He is going to create it - it's good.''

Where does he suggest that Bailey was not serious? All I read is that Neeld must be very intense about achieving success with this group of footballers now. Not achieving competitiveness.

I struggle to see how Bailey could have been relaxed at MFC with so many knives drawn at his back. I dont think the words were well chosen by Jimmy but i am sure there is nothing malicious.

Here.

Not saying it is, but could easily be interpreted as a backhander at Bailey.

Yeah, good find.

It may not be a backhander. It may highlight that to date Neeld has left no stone unturned having only been home 4 -5times since his appointment, working 24/7 trying to prepare and get systems in place so everyone is working "effectively".

Edited November 3, 201113 yr by H_T
Addition and spell error

Rhino i don't think the club went begging to the members at all. Jimma and co were pretty much up front with members giving us a brutal rundown of the state of affairs. It was a case of "if you want the club to live on we have all gotta pay this bill" i was asked to contribute and did. If the club had begged me i probably wouldn't. Call it semantics but one who begs has no pride or style. The MFC still kept that intact.

It was a tin shake whatever you want to call it. And its your call if you would have contributed or not on the semantics of "begging" It was a relentless process. And no one was questioning whether it needed to be done but merely see it for what it was.

Here.

Not saying it is, but could easily be interpreted as a backhander at Bailey.

It could be..certainly

if he had said

"We NOW have a coach who is serious" then no intpretation would be required.

Im inclined to think its a case of.. the coach we have is a very serious coach....and thats hes just obviously talking about the 'now"

Shades of grey possibly

It was a glorified tin rattle, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do, nor does it mean the club should stop looking for fans to supplement revenue.

If you are willing to give the club money, the club should take it.

It could be..certainly

if he had said

"We NOW have a coach who is serious" then no intpretation would be required.

Im inclined to think its a case of.. the coach we have is a very serious coach....and thats hes just obviously talking about the 'now"

Shades of grey possibly

Agree. It's also the way Jimmy expresses himself. I don't think there would be any intent. He could have chosen better words to keep everyone who analyses every word happy - I think he can be excused.

It was a tin shake whatever you want to call it. And its your call if you would have contributed or not on the semantics of "begging" It was a relentless process. And no one was questioning whether it needed to be done but merely see it for what it was.

I actually call it good business. You clear a debt by involving members far more. With that the club becomes more accountable for its actions. The 100 club initiative this year clearly has been a big factor in the FD spending up. We have never used resources like this before. Let us not forget that Geelong never paid off their large debt. It was wiped by their own bank. A Greg Denham journalist type would never mention that would they.

I actually call it good business. You clear a debt by involving members far more. With that the club becomes more accountable for its actions. The 100 club initiative this year clearly has been a big factor in the FD spending up. We have never used resources like this before. Let us not forget that Geelong never paid off their large debt. It was wiped by their own bank. A Greg Denham journalist type would never mention that would they.

No one is saying that it was not good business. Why do you go on about it? Repaying the debt does not necessarily involve members more beyond a personal disposition of each member. All you are doing is asking (eg begging) to put more money in above and beyond yor membership dues without receiving any guarantees in return. I feel no more involved in the Club from having contributed to the debt eradication. Well Geelong's outcome too was good business. Its merely an issue of the process as you have pointed out. Well you can ask Greg Denham when you give him your 8 cylinders or whatever.

Austin Wonaeamirri was a "marquee player"?

Go figure?

And what would have you done differently Greg? Clearing the debt was good business, not begging in my eyes. From there the tree grows. Lots of other clubs are quite envious of debt demolition and how efficient it has been.

I wouldn't have made us look like an absolute basket case after the Geelong game. I wouldn't have let directors get involved in day to day matters of the club. It wasn't repaying the debt that was bad it was getting into it.

If we concede Melbourne tanked then Bailey was not a serious coach.

If we concede Melbourne tanked we have nothing to be proud of.

''It looks like we have a coach now that is really serious and he is not going to relax,'' Stynes said yesterday.

''He is not going to sit back and let it all happen. He is going to create it - it's good.''

Where does he suggest that Bailey was not serious? All I read is that Neeld must be very intense about achieving success with this group of footballers now. Not achieving competitiveness.

Well I reckon that it implies Bailey was not a serious coach. Might be just me. Either way is was a very inappropriate comment. If you can't see that I can't help you.

I agree we were a basket case but point 4 is a vigorous meld, point 5 is not true, and point 6 is an unfair extrapolation of someone's word.

You were proud of the club the way we handled Bailey's sacking, the reinstatement of Schwab and the fact we were the media circus did you?

Sorry, but Scully was a number one draft pick and we lost him. He was a marquee player.

An unfair extrapolation of someone's words. I don't think so. It reflected poorly on Bailey and his FD. It might be true, that's not the issue, it shouldn't have been expressed that way.

I just reckon people need to toughen up. So we cop some flack, reality is we deserve it in a lot of areas, big deal.

My thoughts on this as it has gone on week after week is that Denham is using the MFC for his personal amusement. Don't believe KB 'standing up' for the MFC, He hates Schwabb with a passion and I wouldn't be surprised if in reality KB is winding up Denham. We are moving into a slow time of year so they have to kick around something or someone because SEN without AFL is about as interesting as watching paint dry.

Denham would also be aware of this thread and similar and is probably getting a kick out of the fact that someone who has achieved nothing in football now has a thread 7 pages long. He probably even shows to his editor as evidence that someone is reading or listening to him!

No one is saying that it was not good business. Why do you go on about it? Repaying the debt does not necessarily involve members more beyond a personal disposition of each member. All you are doing is asking (eg begging) to put more money in above and beyond yor membership dues without receiving any guarantees in return. I feel no more involved in the Club from having contributed to the debt eradication. Well Geelong's outcome too was good business. Its merely an issue of the process as you have pointed out. Well you can ask Greg Denham when you give him your 8 cylinders or whatever.

I certainly know far more about the club now than i did under any of our previous administrations. Granted social networking has helped that, but i still think the club is now far more open with the members. I mention the debt Rhino in some ways because you often try to dismiss it as not such a big deal. IMO Debt reduction and realignment with the MCC are the back bone of our survival. Look at the stadium deals of the docklands, with free agency next year North, Footscray & St.kilda could all be in Dire Straits within 5-10 years if they have to continually write cheques to Etihad shareholders.

Scully was a "marquee player"?

Go figure?

How many times did you come home after a game saying "Scully won the game for us today"?

Zero.

He was not a marquee player and neither Melbourne nor any of the other AFL clubs could have stopped him from going to GWS. The AFL saw to that. Geelong couldn't keep Ablett and the Dogs couldn't keep Ward. Yet Denham and his apologists single out Melbourne and Melbourne alone as they do over the tanking which was carried out by at least half a dozen other clubs. Yet Denham and his apologists pick on only one club and rub it's nose in it.