Wet Toast.

that kinda funny isnt it

(ta)

I've just realised what an ordinary operation the Geelong Football Club is. They lost Gary Ablett Jr. They couldn't convince 3 time premiership ruckman Brad Ottens not to retire. They were nearly broke until they did a cosy stadium deal and their fitness bloke nearly destroyed half the team till they sacked him. That Thompson bloke was pretty ordinary the way he shafted them too. And I heard their president talking about how good a coach Scott is.

Ordinary club.

Poor look.

Jack Melbourne looked poor because Scully chose someone else. I don't think there is anything we could have done, but are you suggesting we looked good because he left?

that kinda funny isnt it

(ta)

Yes, never a word about their squeaky clean antics over the last decade.

Costa v Mafia

I like this guy !!

My wifes family used to do the FnV . Some of the stories .....yikes !!

Jack Melbourne looked poor because Scully chose someone else. I don't think there is anything we could have done, but are you suggesting we looked good because he left?

No we just dont accept we look bad because he did. On the contrary we come out looking pretty fair dinkum. Its Team Scully that look the dodgy lot.

He was always going to go. In fact you might say he was more gone than here for all the time he was at Melbourne.

To put it into modern parlance... Its not US...its HIM !!

Jack Melbourne looked poor because Scully chose someone else. I don't think there is anything we could have done, but are you suggesting we looked good because he left?

No. $$$ chose Mr. $cully's new home. If we had matched the offer or tried to top it we would have looked bad. The way it stands right now is firmly in the AFL's corner. The MFC don't look bad at all IMO particularly if that knee of hi$ continues to slow hi$ progress.

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?

Pride has no place when firing a coach. It is always a messy demise. As for the business with Schwab - it is Caroline Wilson's contention that Schwab was 'gone' and not fact, from what I have been able to get out of people it was debatable whether Cam was going to get his option for an extension but that he was never fired on the Infamous Friday. And I am saying that you are putting together facts and your own supposition together in a 'vigorous meld' so that no-one can tell what is fact and what is supposition.

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

No he wasn't. He had the promise to be one but that is different. Potential marquee player is as meaningless as it sounds.

We lost a promising kid and, no it didn't hold us in the greatest light, but that is not losing a marquee player.

The fact that we were also able to snare Mitch Clark should, and has, motted the situation and muted the critics.

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.

A poor placement of the word "now" and suddenly all the great things that Stynes has said about Bailey is thrown out the door. It shouldn't have been expressed that way, but it shouldn't have been interpreted the way you have interpreted it.

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.

I think the opposite, we always sit in silence and take our lot.

If people want to say their piece about Denham saying his piece then that is fine.

Big, strong clubs are thunderous and arrogant and lack self-reflection and over-react and don't like criticism.

They do something about it internally but show a strong, intimidating front, and I would welcome that - even if it was from the fans.

No. $$$ chose Mr. $cully's new home. If we had matched the offer or tried to top it we would have looked bad. The way it stands right now is firmly in the AFL's corner. The MFC don't look bad at all IMO particularly if that knee of hi$ continues to slow hi$ progress.

I think we did what we could but we would have looked better if he stayed. I think it was a negative for the club but I see your point of view.

So he had a crack at us. Who cares?

Twenty years of crawlin' was bottled up inside him.

He wasn't holdin' nothin' back; he let 'em have it all.

When tommy left the barroom not a Gatlin boy was standin'.

He said, this ones for Becky, as he watched the last one fall.

And I heard him say,

"I promised you, dad, not to do the things you've done.

I walk away from trouble when I can.

Now please don't think I'm weak, I didn't turn the other cheek,

And papa, I sure hope you understand:

Sometimes you gotta fight when you're a man".

Evr'yone considered him the coward of the county.

RPFC I think the right decision was made to replace Bailey. I think the way it was done was just awful, but if you don't that's ok. I do agree we lost all pride, if that means nothing to you then ok, but we could have fired Bailey either that week or at the end of the season and kept both our pride and got the result.

I'll not debate you on Scully because I think he was a marquee player because he was a large "Face" of the club. You don't because he wasn't a good player. I'd just point you to the number of kids wearing 31.

Jimmy has to stand by what he said. I don't blame him for it, it was just poor choice and reflects badly.

I'm glad many here aren't on the Board because they think everything is just fine. Well IMO we've done some things very poorly and we can improve. Denham is actually giving us a public voice to try and aspire to something better and all people want to do here is shut him up.

I don't care that we cop criticism. I don't care if some of it is overstated. I want pressure put on the club to achieve better things in all areas. I'm not frightened to recognise areas of concern.

Oh, and your information and mine are completely different about Schwab hence we won't agree. I'm very comfortable with my position.

I think we did what we could but we would have looked better if he stayed. I think it was a negative for the club but I see your point of view.

He was gone all through 2011,it was not an issue. The corporate monster was hungry. I honestly think we would be worse off if he had stayed. The media expectation would be a weekly noose that would become a burden, if we were forced to pay a massive contract. Something that a Greg Denham would love to focus on. I think the MFC learnt from Geelong, as in if the deal is done we just move forward. No moaning to the AFL, just go hard in the draft and train the team.

What i will say is this...we need some good performances in '12 we have got nowhere to hide if next year is bad.

He was gone all through 2011,it was not an issue. T

If he was gone all through 2011 why did GWS increase his offer from 5 to 6 years?

Anyway Scully has been done to death. Personally I'd rather he'd stayed but he didn't. I was [censored] when he left because people from other clubs SMS'd me saying things along the lines of "couldn't keep Scully, poor effort". It's perceptions. We looked bad but I think we did what we should have.

I'm not criticising the club at all on the handling of Scully, but he left and that's a hard thing to put a positive spin on.

I think we did what we could but we would have looked better if he stayed. I think it was a negative for the club but I see your point of view.

Unless Scully stayed for the same money or less than Trengove we would have left ourselves open to criticism for paying over the odds, same as now with Clark? I think the whole point with this argument is that you can't win when someone is running an agenda against you.

Unless Scully stayed for the same money or less than Trengove we would have left ourselves open to criticism for paying over the odds, same as now with Clark? I think the whole point with this argument is that you can't win when someone is running an agenda against you.

I don't think anyone of consequence will take any notice of Denham's "agenda". Heavens, if I didn't read Demonland I wouldn't know about it. Most of the press I see at the moment is very positive about the club, that there is one voice out there having a go at us is probably healthy.

Denham has no capacity to hurt us unless he can enlist the help of the media in general and that ain't going to happen.

Not many poker players around here!!

RPFC I think the right decision was made to replace Bailey. I think the way it was done was just awful, but if you don't that's ok. I do agree we lost all pride, if that means nothing to you then ok, but we could have fired Bailey either that week or at the end of the season and kept both our pride and got the result.

I didn't say we lost all pride. I said that pride has no place when you have to fire a coach. And Bailey's papers were marked with pencil in the loss against the WB, and it was a fait accompli after the Geelong game. To keep him on would be farcical - similar to Frawley at the Tigers.

If you are not continuing with someone then you should cut ties - that's what we did.

I'll not debate you on Scully because I think he was a marquee player because he was a large "Face" of the club. You don't because he wasn't a good player. I'd just point you to the number of kids wearing 31.

Judd, Riewoldt, Pavlich, etc - these are marquee players. Scully should become a player of similar ilk but to say he was of that ilk when he left is misleading.

Jimmy has to stand by what he said. I don't blame him for it, it was just poor choice and reflects badly.

It reflects badly until one does some research and looks at the very good things that Stynes has said about Bailey that somehow carry little weight because of the word "now."

I'm glad many here aren't on the Board because they think everything is just fine. Well IMO we've done some things very poorly and we can improve. Denham is actually giving us a public voice to try and aspire to something better and all people want to do here is shut him up.

The people here want to challenge him with all the things that we think has gone right over the recent past of the footy club. They are entitled to that view.

I don't care that we cop criticism. I don't care if some of it is overstated. I want pressure put on the club to achieve better things in all areas. I'm not frightened to recognise areas of concern.

To criticise Denham is to be 'frightened to recognise areas of concern' at the club? I welcome criticism but let's be honest - Greg Denham is not going to give you expert criticism of the MFC.

Oh, and your information and mine are completely different about Schwab hence we won't agree. I'm very comfortable with my position.

I am comfortable with my sources on this aswell, at no point had Cameron Schwab lost his job.

It makes a good story, but it wasn't as sexy as many claim.

His extension was debated and he was kept on for a year.

I think we did what we could but we would have looked better if he stayed. I think it was a negative for the club but I see your point of view.

It doesn't have to be a negative/positive or good/bad situation. There are many shades between the two extremes including neutral.

Re T$, I thought we came out of it either neutral or slightly positive because [a] we fought the good fight we didn't overreact/overquote [c] we were in a no-win situation not of our making [d] we got top compensation in the eyes of others [e] gws were seen to have done a bad deal by many [f] gws were seen as being dishonest

Jack Melbourne looked poor because Scully chose someone else.  I don't think there is anything we could have done, but are you suggesting we looked good because he left?

No. 

All that I'm suggesting is you can put your own brand of spin on anything and that's exactly what Denham is trying to do.

Personally, I don't really worry about how we as a club look to Greg Denham because, for some reason, he seems to have an unhealthy obsession about Melbourne and the more he prattles on about it the more stupid he looks.

I don't care about Scully any more either. He and his old man are someone else's problem.  I don't believe either were loved by the Melbourne insiders or Tom by the playing group and I cant accept the description of him as a marquee player simply because he was might have been used by the club in its marketing. 

Matthew Pavlich is a marquee player. Buddy Franklin is a marquee player. Jeff Farmer was our last. 

Jim Stynes is doing the right thing. He's looking forward. He's highlighting our new coach and our extended coaching set up. It's exciting, it's special and really does mark a serious attempt to match it with the big boys. We've just scored the recruiting coup of the trade week and we're moving forward.

That's a good look to me and I prefer viewing my club in that frame a damn sight more than giving oxygen or credibility to that ratbag Denham.

Denham made that comment about Melbourne being totally unprofessional - I don't know what context it was said in, but I presume he was talking about Aussie.

If so, what would be more unprofessional, allowing a player with questionable commitment and who remains not contactable despite knowing his career is at stake, to take the spot on the list of a rookie who will work his arse off to make his career happen, or simply keep him on in the hope that he decides he wants to play football? Playing football at the highest level is a privilege, not a right. Neeld seems to be implying, particularly given his treatment of Sylvia, that if you aren't 100% committed to playing football, you are 100% not in his plans. THIS is a professional standing.

It's comments like these that make Denham, from what I hear, a joke even amongst his own colleagues.

No.

All that I'm suggesting is you can put your own brand of spin on anything and that's exactly what Denham is trying to do.

Personally, I don't really worry about how we as a club look to Greg Denham because, for some reason, he seems to have an unhealthy obsession about Melbourne and the more he prattles on about it the more stupid he looks.

I don't care about Scully any more either. He and his old man are someone else's problem. I don't believe either were loved by the Melbourne insiders or Tom by the playing group and I cant accept the description of him as a marquee player simply because he was might have been used by the club in its marketing.

Matthew Pavlich is a marquee player. Buddy Franklin is a marquee player. Jeff Farmer was our last.

Jim Stynes is doing the right thing. He's looking forward. He's highlighting our new coach and our extended coaching set up. It's exciting, it's special and really does mark a serious attempt to match it with the big boys. We've just scored the recruiting coup of the trade week and we're moving forward.

That's a good look to me and I prefer viewing my club in that frame a damn sight more than giving oxygen or credibility to that ratbag Denham.

Well said WJ

I am a regular SEN listener and all he has achieved in my opinion is to make him self look silly.

"Better to be thought a fool than open your mouth and put it beyond all doubt"

Is there still footy talk on the radio? I only catch some of the Ox's show and they're usually talking about beer or movies.....

Is there still footy talk on the radio? I only catch some of the Ox's show and they're usually talking about beer or movies.....

much like demonland this time of year

Still a few posters having a heated debate about the name that blisters all tongues.....

much like demonland this time of year

That's bananas...

That's bananas...

Can't believe you beat me to it, but there it is it's now on 2 threads.

You Guys are obsessed with Bananas!!!

I like bananas but i have never thought of them so much in all my life as i have here on Demonland!

Who'da thunk it....