Yesterday's Herald Sun published the changes to AFL club lists including GWS list additions and Junior Mac was not included.

I'm wondering if that's an inadvertent mistake, whether Junior has to actually be drafted (possibly as a mature age rookie - yes, I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous but most things associated with GWS are) or whether there's been a change of heart on the part of GWS.

I suppose we'll find out in the fullness of time.

I thought infants who were treatly poorly during their early years often grow up to be dysfunctional.

Yesterday's Herald Sun published the changes to AFL club lists including GWS list additions and Junior Mac was not included.

I'm wondering if that's an inadvertent mistake, whether Junior has to actually be drafted (possibly as a mature age rookie - yes, I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous but most things associated with GWS are) or whether there's been a change of heart on the part of GWS.

I suppose we'll find out in the fullness of time.

I read in an arcticle on Tim Mohr that Junior's going to be drafted by GWS - they've used up all their previouslty listed/draft player picks.

Yesterday's Herald Sun published the changes to AFL club lists including GWS list additions and Junior Mac was not included.

I'm wondering if that's an inadvertent mistake, whether Junior has to actually be drafted (possibly as a mature age rookie - yes, I know that sounds absolutely ridiculous but most things associated with GWS are) or whether there's been a change of heart on the part of GWS.

I suppose we'll find out in the fullness of time.

I hope he doesn't play because he will make a fool of himself and ruin a good career and reputation, like Lockett did when he came back.

I recall a year back the CEO of the NRL predicted that GWS would end up being the "AFL's Vietnam" - costing millions and ending up in defeat.

I think he might be on the money.

I recall a year back the CEO of the NRL predicted that GWS would end up being the "AFL's Vietnam" - costing millions and ending up in defeat.

I think he might be on the money.

I have my suspiscions yo could well be right. Would be pure dumb luck by Gallop though as it strikes me he couldnt organise a p!ss up in a brewery.

The only thing that will work in the AFL's favour , as I see it, is if you were to soley extrapolate all things oin as they are then the AFL WILL lose. If however yo factor in that the demographic and population in that area is likely to greatly change then its this change that the AFL might be able to harness and indeed coat-tail ride.

Now if the AFL could only get the Vietnamese to play footy more !!

I recall a year back the CEO of the NRL predicted that GWS would end up being the "AFL's Vietnam" - costing millions and ending up in defeat.

I think he might be on the money.

Bang on course at the moment!

Bang on course at the moment!

More like the AFL's Afghanistan...and it could get very ugly.

I've seen more impressive trophy rooms at the local bowls club!

I disagree with the sentiment about GWS. I think the AFL has made a smart long term move, going into the heart of Sydney's Rugby League and Soccer territory. Sure, it will be at a high cost short term, but the AFL has the money and at least they are using it to expand and develop the game.

Some will argue that Tasmania should have a team, but although they probably deserve a team, they are seen as already being supporters of the league and more specifically, of Melbourne clubs who are in dire need of the extra support. Tasmania would be a token, not neccessarily an expansion of our great game.

I disagree with the sentiment about GWS. I think the AFL has made a smart long term move, going into the heart of Sydney's Rugby League and Soccer territory. Sure, it will be at a high cost short term, but the AFL has the money and at least they are using it to expand and develop the game.

Some will argue that Tasmania should have a team, but although they probably deserve a team, they are seen as already being supporters of the league and more specifically, of Melbourne clubs who are in dire need of the extra support. Tasmania would be a token, not neccessarily an expansion of our great game.

I use to support the expansion concept but I am now over it. The AFL is expanding because it, like all businesses wants to grow its audience and revenues and put more money in its pockets. This is of little or no benefit to those of us who are already customers. The AFL is under no threat in the southern states from Rugby (who can't even organise themselves into one code!) or Soccer.

I would love someone to explain to me how expansion will benefit Melbourne? As I see it, it will further dilute our chances of playing finals or winning flag and like all things that 'grow' the gap between the have's & have not's will widen.

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by diesel

I would love someone to explain to me how expansion will benefit Melbourne? As I see it, it will further dilute our chances of playing finals or winning flag and like all things that 'grow' the gap between the have's & have not's will widen.

Believe it or not, the expansion of the game is dependent on providing sufficient TV content to sustain the massive TV rights that is the financial lifeblood of the AFL and every club in it.

Without the largesse from the TV rights, clubs like Melbourne would not financially exist. You are right about the gap between rich and poor and its critical that MFC develop a successful business model within the pre eminent football code in Australia.

I cant understand all the desire for GWS or GC to fail. Its in everyone's interest including MFC that the AFL is a profitable viable sporting competition. The AFL needs to make headway in NSW to further entrench the code. Too many are being washed aside from the early waves to miss the bigger picture.

WAC.. I fully understand the idea of GWS. Its the ideal of it that lacks. The analogy earlier of Vietnam might prove warranted. Both the AFL and the US are mighty in repsective circles. Both ahve huge armoury and war chests to finance their goals. The US made grave errors of judgement in its understanding of not only who or what the enemy was, let alone where but also of how its own constituents viewed the whole affair. Its all well to take on ones enemy head on and in their strong-hold but will that win you the lollies ?

I dont see the Tassie thing as being of consequence to any desire or need to expand the game in 'other' backyards. Tassie will come one day . The league ( AFL ) is seeking to mount an offensive in the enemy's heartland. Its hoping, in so doing , to land some sort of fatal wound. One mighty lunge at the jugular. It ( Vlad & co ) might well look to the history books and observe the failed and futile campaigns waged by seemingly greater forces against established and stubborn foes.

The argument possibly by some is it migt have been wiser to seek to starve the enemy rather than behead it. Gnaw away at regiosn that feed the NRL rather than its heart. Its possible these same 'wheatbelts' also foster ambition in the round ball code so some will argue going to these areas would kill two birds for the effort.

The larger public might just view it as the AFL trying to bully its way and often bullies come unstuck. Im all for furthering our great game, but you need to be clever and this just seems hamfisted really.

I use to support the expansion concept but I am now over it. The AFL is expanding because it, like all businesses wants to grow its audience and revenues and put more money in its pockets. This is of little or no benefit to those of us who are already customers. The AFL is under no threat in the southern states from Rugby (who can't even organise themselves into one code!) or Soccer.

I would love someone to explain to me how expansion will benefit Melbourne? As I see it, it will further dilute our chances of playing finals or winning flag and like all things that 'grow' the gap between the have's & have not's will widen.

I agree. The league is just like any other multinational. The benefits of expansion will only dilute the strength of the MFC unless we are very prudent and careful.

I can actually see an overkill factor with an expansion. Do we want 9 games or more a week? Many of them will be crap. But how can we tell Andrew?

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by why you little

I agree. The league is just like any other multinational. The benefits of expansion will only dilute the strength of the MFC unless we are very prudent and careful.

I can actually see an overkill factor with an expansion. Do we want 9 or more a week? Many of them will be crap. But how can we tell Andrew?

Including a large number of MFC games in 2011 WYL.

Hope that changes next season but we stand a chance of being one of the few interesting games that GWS and GC play in during 2012

Absolutely. Over kill is not healthy. I would prefer quality rather than quantity that i have to pay Rupert Murdoch to watch. And yes i know the game is professional now, and i want the players to be looked after. But i am worried the AFL has got too greedy.

The 2012 fixture has got the smell of knee jerk entertainment to me. The MFC must get better and stronger to stay ahead of it's own destiny.

There's a few poor souls on here that think we should have gone for Sheedy back when we had the chance...

There's a few poor souls on here that think we should have gone for Sheedy back when we had the chance...

Imagine what he would have done in 2008!!!! My God it's too horrible to contemplate....Classic sliding doors scenario though.

What would Kevin Sheedy have done as senior coach after Danners packed up?

Imagine what he would have done in 2008!!!! My God it's too horrible to contemplate....Classic sliding doors scenario though.

What would Kevin Sheedy have done as senior coach after Danners packed up?

I've covered this in other threads so I won't rehash it all, but it's not like we dodged a bullet. Or we did dodge one and stepped on a hand grenade. The board decided to turn the list over, and the list manager and recruiters did their jobs. What would have Sheedy done that made it any worse?

I've covered this in other threads so I won't rehash it all, but it's not like we dodged a bullet. Or we did dodge one and stepped on a hand grenade. The board decided to turn the list over, and the list manager and recruiters did their jobs. What would have Sheedy done that made it any worse?

Bailey, say what you will about his coaching or development, turned the list over quite brilliantly, and ruthlessly.

You can't on the one hand call the Bailey tenure a 'hand grenade' and as I am reading this I realise that you were the one that made that wholly unfair assessment of Bailey that was posted recently...

Suffice it to say - you have your view, I have mine.

But I very much doubt that we would have gone for as much youth as we did, and while that was partly to blame for the disaster that was 2012, it is also the principle reason why folks around here are so bullish about the future.

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by rpfc

Imagine what he would have done in 2008!!!! My God it's too horrible to contemplate....Classic sliding doors scenario though.

What would Kevin Sheedy have done as senior coach after Danners packed up?

That is a very good question, i have wondered about what he would have done and of course there is no answer.

However I often wonder if the years between 2008 and now would have been less successful.

The only answer I have is probably not.

Now you will no doubt inform me of the error of my ways.

So please tell me how would our results been worse?

Bailey, say what you will about his coaching or development, turned the list over quite brilliantly, and ruthlessly.

You can't on the one hand call the Bailey tenure a 'hand grenade' and as I am reading this I realise that you were the one that made that wholly unfair assessment of Bailey that was posted recently...

Suffice it to say - you have your view, I have mine.

But I very much doubt that we would have gone for as much youth as we did, and while that was partly to blame for the disaster that was 2012, it is also the principle reason why folks around here are so bullish about the future.

One of areas that we disagree on is the turning over of the list and recruitment of youth. My reading of your posts is that you credit it to Bailey. I believe that the club has stated on many occasions that the turning over of the list was a club directive, down from the board. Whoever was coaching the team would have had the same list turnover. I believe you credit Bailey with the work of others, the list manager and the recruiters, and do not judge him on his actual job, coaching.

Back to this thread, Sheedy was the last person that I wanted at Melbourne, but if they did hire him instead of Bailey I doubt the result would be any different.

Edited November 2, 201113 yr by Thomo

One of areas that we disagree on is the turning over of the list and recruitment of youth. My reading of your posts is that you credit it to Bailey. I believe that the club has stated on many occasions that the turning over of the list was a club directive, down from the board. Whoever was coaching the team would have had the same list turnover. I believe you credit Bailey with the work of others, the list manager and the recruiters, and do not judge him on his actual job, coaching.

Back to this thread, Sheedy was the last person that I wanted at Melbourne, but if they did hire him instead of Bailey I doubt the result would be any different.

Well, if you believe said directive was from those at the club (Bailey would have been apart of that decision, but we move on...) how do you think Sheedy would have taken that?

"Listen Kevin, we want to purge this ageing list and attempt to claim a good draft position in the next couple of years before the expansion clubs take all the picks."

"That's great. How do you guys feel about recruiting Mark Bolton? Oh, you don't want him? That's too bad because I am going to put it out into the press that MArk Bolton has a contract waiting for him."

Hypotheticals are always treacherous but, seriously, I can see Sheedy being an absolute effing disaster. We would be picking up the remnants of some awful deals and clearing out the dead wood he traded for to try and stay competitive after the Daniher years.

That is a very good question, i have wondered about what he would have done and of course there is no answer.

However I often wonder if the years between 2008 and now would have been less successful.

The only answer I have is probably not.

Now you will no doubt inform me of the error of my ways.

So please tell me how would our results been worse?

I don't think the list would have turned over nearly as hard under Sheedy...he would have bought in ex players to cover up holes.

And like rpfc i give Bailey his credit for what he did. As he must have forecast a lot of his own future.

As he said..."I did a job for the MFC to the best of my ability"

Sheeds would not have done that, which is probably the very reason he did not get the job in the first place.

One of areas that we disagree on is the turning over of the list and recruitment of youth. My reading of your posts is that you credit it to Bailey. I believe that the club has stated on many occasions that the turning over of the list was a club directive, down from the board. Whoever was coaching the team would have had the same list turnover. I believe you credit Bailey with the work of others, the list manager and the recruiters, and do not judge him on his actual job, coaching. Back to this thread, Sheedy was the last person that I wanted at Melbourne, but if they did hire him instead of Bailey I doubt the result would be any different.

I ask again Thomo...what would you have done between 08-10 if you had Bailey's gig? Given the list as it was and the Budget restraints

2011 was bad, but i give him great credit for the 3 years previous.