If we are talking irrelevant, then no more irellevant team than Fitzroy when Roos was with them.

At least Melbourne are still around!

All those poor performances by Roos and his mates led to the downfall of the club.

Roos has probably never recovered and wants to take another struggling club with him.

Bad news Roos!

  On 06/08/2012 at 22:03, Deelirium said:

so am i to believe that some people in here think that they asked Brock Mclean why he left in melbourne as a round about way of trying to get rid of schwab as ceo over the tanking issue?....

that's pretty thin

No, it's not. It's pretty thick actually.

Putting heat on Melbourne brings unwanted attention from the AFL and casts us in a bad light to any free agent who might be considering a big money move to the club. Players like Travis Cloke and Travis Boak, for instance. You don't think the guillotine of AFL sanctions won't come into the equation when they sit down with their managers to make their decisions? Puhh-lease ...

As an attempt to destabilize Melbourne and specifically Cameron Schwab at a time when we're about to run a fundraiser to generate extra cash for these players (not to mention at a time when this controversial CEO is set to be re-contracted), it was about as blatant a swipe as you can get.

McLardy's fighting words on Sunday were a direct, defiant reply of "you're going to have to do better than that" to the insurgents, who at this stage have cleverly remained faceless. But make no mistake, there's an angry little faction within the club who don't want Schwab around, don't want money thrown Cloke and are seemingly prepared to whatever it takes to put doubts in the minds of board members on these two issues specifically.

It's not hard to guess who they are if you use your noggin.

  On 06/08/2012 at 22:34, Range Rover said:

No, it's not. It's pretty thick actually.

Putting heat on Melbourne brings unwanted attention from the AFL and casts us in a bad light to any free agent who might be considering a big money move to the club. Players like Travis Cloke and Travis Boak, for instance. You don't think the guillotine of AFL sanctions won't come into the equation when they sit down with their managers to make their decisions? Puhh-lease ...

As an attempt to destabilize Melbourne and specifically Cameron Schwab at a time when we're about to run a fundraiser to generate extra cash for these players (not to mention at a time when this controversial CEO is set to be re-contracted), it was about as blatant a swipe as you can get.

McLardy's fighting words on Sunday were a direct, defiant reply of "you're going to have to do better than that" to the insurgents, who at this stage have cleverly remained faceless. But make no mistake, there's an angry little faction within the club who don't want Schwab around, don't want money thrown Cloke and are seemingly prepared to whatever it takes to put doubts in the minds of board members on these two issues specifically.

It's not hard to guess who they are if you use your noggin.

ok so even if they are doing all this to bring Melbourne down insurgent style... do you think that this is because they just don't Melbourne and Schwab?

As a general sceptic of football conspiracies, I have a hard time believing why they would even bother. I mean, i watch OTC most weeks, and sometimes they can go over the line, but generally their criticism is warranted.

  On 06/08/2012 at 22:51, Deelirium said:

ok so even if they are doing all this to bring Melbourne down insurgent style... do you think that this is because they just don't Melbourne and Schwab?

As a general sceptic of football conspiracies, I have a hard time believing why they would even bother. I mean, i watch OTC most weeks, and sometimes they can go over the line, but generally their criticism is warranted.

A lot of people don't like Schwab. Specifically to Melbourne, some veteran players on our list don't like Schwab. 186, Junior McDonald and all that.

In these matters, it always pays to look at who benefits and loses out financially pending the outcome of a power struggle. Melbourne has quite a bit of money to spend on football players at the moment does it not? I would suggest there are a few out there who disagree with the way that money should be spent.

What's more, they've found a sympathetic ear in Gerard Healy and Mike Sheahan.

I think Paul Roos performances in the media seem lazy as he doesnt appear to do any research or be prepared for anything they discuss. He is asked for his opinion and he just rambles on without really any adding anything insightful. He's just enjoying the easy life without putting in much effort.

  On 06/08/2012 at 18:56, Apocalypse XXXI said:

As an attempt to garner discussion and controversy it was a success. As an attempt to unseat C Schwab it was a monumental failure.

Do you think it was an attempt ?

Anyway if anything I think collectively there is a stronger resolve to see it through.

  On 06/08/2012 at 23:10, Range Rover said:

A lot of people don't like Schwab. Specifically to Melbourne, some veteran players on our list don't like Schwab. 186, Junior McDonald and all that.

In these matters, it always pays to look at who benefits and loses out financially pending the outcome of a power struggle. Melbourne has quite a bit of money to spend on football players at the moment does it not? I would suggest there are a few out there who disagree with the way that money should be spent.

What's more, they've found a sympathetic ear in Gerard Healy and Mike Sheahan.

Just so i can get all the facts right, you are saying

- Some people at Melbourne don't like Schwab, i.e vet players, board members.

- Those people have complained about schwab to Healy Sheahan about the way money is going to be spent on players.

- Together, Healy and Sheahan get Mclean on "on the couch" to ask him about why he left Melbourne to ignite a discussion about the tanking debate, and who was to blame for the decisions.

- All this is done to unseat Schwab and prevent the spending of money on players who the conspirators don't think we need.

Range Rover, do you believe in Aliens?

Anyway, little Libba and Buddy have stolen the negative spotlight for the time being!

  On 07/08/2012 at 00:36, DemonWA said:

Range Rover, do you believe in Aliens?

Anyway, little Libba and Buddy have stolen the negative spotlight for the time being!

Melbourne must have been involved in both incidents some how. I'm sure Greg Denham or on the couch will make the connection soon enough.

There are some folks that don't like Schwab and don't like what we *did under Schwab.

But I really don't think these people with ill feeling toward Schwab are as organised as RR believes they are.

*That one game is slowly morphing in the eyes of some in the media into a 2 year 'immoral exercise' from the start of 08 through to the end of 09 and as frustrating as the accusation that we tanked for 44 games is - the ridiculousness of it will be borne out soon enough.

  On 06/08/2012 at 23:10, Range Rover said:

A lot of people don't like Schwab. Specifically to Melbourne, some veteran players on our list don't like Schwab. 186, Junior McDonald and all that.

what is your source for that? which players?

is that pure speculation/extrapolation or is there some tangible proof?

  On 07/08/2012 at 00:30, Deelirium said:

Just so i can get all the facts right, you are saying

- Some people at Melbourne don't like Schwab, i.e vet players, board members.

- Those people have complained about schwab to Healy Sheahan about the way money is going to be spent on players.

- Together, Healy and Sheahan get Mclean on "on the couch" to ask him about why he left Melbourne to ignite a discussion about the tanking debate, and who was to blame for the decisions.

- All this is done to unseat Schwab and prevent the spending of money on players who the conspirators don't think we need.

Getting close. More like ... A few disgruntled insiders (veteran players and FD staff) don't like Schwab and more revelently don't like this push to throw huge wads of money at free agents. At veteran player level, this is mostly caused at being miffed that the club would consider writing an open cheque to the likes of Cloke and Boak when they themsleves have put in 10+ years of what they would say is loyal, hard slog at a lowly club. Higher up, it is more political and about the direction the club is taking with important football department decisions. That's where Gerard Healy, brother of our Director of Football, comes into the picture with this concerted attack on Schwab. He and Sheahan believe that "tanking creates a losing culture" and that the parties responsible for fostering that policy should cop it in the neck, not the players or coaches who carried it out. But as has been discussed on this forum, that is a very dubious claim without too much basis in fact.

  On 07/08/2012 at 00:36, DemonWA said:

Range Rover, do you believe in Aliens?

I don't discount the possibility DemonWA!

  On 07/08/2012 at 00:37, rpfc said:

There are some folks that don't like Schwab and don't like what we *did under Schwab.

But I really don't think these people with ill feeling toward Schwab are as organised as RR believes they are.

I'm not so sure about that, Rpfc. If Cloke, Boak and whoever else have dismissed Melbourne as an option owing to the 'tanking' allegations, then that would be no small victory for them I would've thought.

No I don't think that's what RR is saying Deelirium.

Personally I don't think it's a deliberate strategy - but Melbourne seem to attract a disproportionate amount of negative commentary from the panelists, which I find weird in the context that they've also stated we're an irrelevant club. That said, if we're so irrelevant, why do they continually attack the club. Most Aussies tend to have some sympathy for the underdog, yet that never appears to be afforded to us.

It's been a thoroughly bruising year for this club, although I cannot think of one positive story they've led about anything we've done or have tried to do. It's just been an all-out full frontal attack, whether it be related to the appointment of Neeld, paying too much for Mitch Clark, the selection of the young Captains, the overly defensive game plan, Neeld's direct messaging to the media, "tanking" circa 2008, the club's treatment of Moloney, the lack of criticism of Maguire in talking to Jurrah immediately after his charge w/o informing the club, the racism allegations against Neeld, the suggestion that the players are not "playing" for Neeld etc. The list is long. And boring. And unbalanced.

However, there are many positive stories that could also have been run during this period. For instance, several sought after players have committed to this club under Neeld (Jamar, Howe, Jones) when they could've played out negotiations for a lot longer a la Cloke and Boak and Caddy. No mention. Why not? Is this not a positive statement as to where the players think the club is going, particularly given the coverage they've devoted to Neeld and his apparently negative impact on the player group? Or is it not newsworthy at all?

My view is that it's unbalanced commentary. You can form a different view, but I reckon most objective observers would sit closer to my view on this than any alternative view.

As to your points, in my observation:

- the criticism that I've heard levelled at the MFC by the Bozos On The Couch is not always entirely reasonable or balanced; and

- Schwab, without doubt, has his critics - one or two of whom may (or may not) be Healy and Sheahan. I'm not sure why Schwab attracts so much criticism, but I acknowledge that he does. As to this, I don't have a strong view because I'm not sure if the criticism is warranted or not. In short, I don't know.

But I don't think it's fair that so much unbalanced commentary is directed towards the club, even if there are some issues involving the CEO (none of which are readily apparent to those not in 'the know').

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:08, Range Rover said:

Getting close. More like ... A few disgruntled insiders (veteran players and FD staff) don't like Schwab and more revelently don't like this push to throw huge wads of money at free agents. At veteran player level, this is mostly caused at being miffed that the club would consider writing an open cheque to the likes of Cloke and Boak when they themsleves have put in 10+ years of what they would say is loyal, hard slog at a lowly club. Higher up, it is more political and about the direction the club is taking with important football department decisions. That's where Gerard Healy, brother of our Director of Football, comes into the picture with this concerted attack on Schwab. He and Sheahan believe that "tanking creates a losing culture" and that the parties responsible for fostering that policy should cop it in the neck, not the players or coaches who carried it out. But as has been discussed on this forum, that is a very dubious claim without too much basis in fact.

I say this quite often when i read your posts RR, and i don't think ive ever meant it as much as i do right now

Good god!

^{I believe it is safe to assume there has been some disharmony at the club. In these days where a 100% commitment is demanded by the players just to be competetive it is critical that player morale is kept at an optimal level. Question is how much still remains. Spending money on big recruits and other measures may make things worse unless the root cause of the disharmony is neutralised.}

  On 07/08/2012 at 00:46, daisycutter said:

what is your source for that? which players?

is that pure speculation/extrapolation or is there some tangible proof?

As with the Scully saga, proof and smoking guns very rarely materialize DC.

I just work from the basic premise of what motivates people in life and as a rule of thumb it is usually money.

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:15, Deelirium said:

I say this quite often when i read your posts RR, and i don't think ive ever meant it as much as i do right now

Good god!

If I can manage to shock you into such a response, Deelirium, that's not such a bad result!

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:15, Deelirium said:

I say this quite often when i read your posts RR, and i don't think ive ever meant it as much as i do right now

Good god!

I think we've gotten so used to the media running trash talk about our club that when Hawthorn and the Bulldogs steal the lime light we start to create our own!

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:13, Ron Burgundy said:

No I don't think that's what RR is saying Deelirium.

Personally I don't think it's a deliberate strategy - but Melbourne seem to attract a disproportionate amount of negative commentary from the panelists, which I find weird in the context that they've also stated we're an irrelevant club. That said, if we're so irrelevant, why do they continually attack the club. Most Aussies tend to have some sympathy for the underdog, yet that never appears to be afforded to us.

It's been a thoroughly bruising year for this club, although I cannot think of one positive story they've led about anything we've done or have tried to do. It's just been an all-out full frontal attack, whether it be related to the appointment of Neeld, paying too much for Mitch Clark, the selection of the young Captains, the overly defensive game plan, Neeld's direct messaging to the media, "tanking" circa 2008, the club's treatment of Moloney, the lack of criticism of Maguire in talking to Jurrah immediately after his charge w/o informing the club, the racism allegations against Neeld, the suggestion that the players are not "playing" for Neeld etc. The list is long. And boring. And unbalanced.

However, there are many positive stories that could also have been run during this period. For instance, several sought after players have committed to this club under Neeld (Jamar, Howe, Jones) when they could've played out negotiations for a lot longer a la Cloke and Boak and Caddy. No mention. Why not? Is this not a positive statement as to where the players think the club is going, particularly given the coverage they've devoted to Neeld and his apparently negative impact on the player group? Or is it not newsworthy at all?

My view is that it's unbalanced commentary. You can form a different view, but I reckon most objective observers would sit closer to my view on this than any alternative view.

As to your points, in my observation:

- the criticism that I've heard levelled at the MFC by the Bozos On The Couch is not always entirely reasonable or balanced; and

- Schwab, without doubt, has his critics - one or two of whom may (or may not) be Healy and Sheahan. I'm not sure why Schwab attracts so much criticism, but I acknowledge that he does. As to this, I don't have a strong view because I'm not sure if the criticism is warranted or not. In short, I don't know.

But I don't think it's fair that so much unbalanced commentary is directed towards the club, even if there are some issues involving the CEO (none of which are readily apparent to those not in 'the know').

I agree with some things you are saying, but generally i find on the couch to be ok. Just because a club is going through a bad patch on and off the field doesn't mean that their immune to criticism, just ask st.kilda after that whole... naked photo business.

Unfortunately, the media will continue to kick us until we get up, regardless of weather it's on the couch or on other footy shows. I'm actually surprised that people think we get singled out OTC, there are plenty of journalists and commentators who dig the boots in a hell of a lot more i.e Walls, Shaw, Dunstall etc.

OTC can be critical, but it would be fairly boring otherwise i think. I for one don't want sympathy, i don't want free rides and i do want people to be held accountable, which is starting to happen. But we're still in a transition stage, and as long as you're down the bottom of the ladder, externally things will look like they're not working even when they are.

Just take solace in the fact that it's just their opinion, and opinions are like.... what's that saying again?

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:20, america de cali said:

^{I believe it is safe to assume there has been some disharmony at the club. In these days where a 100% commitment is demanded by the players just to be competetive it is critical that player morale is kept at an optimal level. Question is how much still remains. Spending money on big recruits and other measures may make things worse unless the root cause of the disharmony is neutralised.}

Or delisted.

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:27, Deelirium said:

I agree with some things you are saying, but generally i find on the couch to be ok. Just because a club is going through a bad patch on and off the field doesn't mean that their immune to criticism, just ask st.kilda after that whole... naked photo business.

Unfortunately, the media will continue to kick us until we get up, regardless of weather it's on the couch or on other footy shows. I'm actually surprised that people think we get singled out OTC, there are plenty of journalists and commentators who dig the boots in a hell of a lot more i.e Walls, Shaw, Dunstall etc.

OTC can be critical, but it would be fairly boring otherwise i think. I for one don't want sympathy, i don't want free rides and i do want people to be held accountable, which is starting to happen. But we're still in a transition stage, and as long as you're down the bottom of the ladder, externally things will look like they're not working even when they are.

Just take solace in the fact that it's just their opinion, and opinions are like.... what's that saying again?

Ask yourself this ... if we're 'irrelevant', why bother even mentioning us?

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:13, Ron Burgundy said:

No I don't think that's what RR is saying Deelirium.

Personally I don't think it's a deliberate strategy - but Melbourne seem to attract a disproportionate amount of negative commentary from the panelists,

My view is that it's unbalanced commentary. You can form a different view, but I reckon most objective observers would sit closer to my view on this than any alternative view.

- Schwab, without doubt, has his critics - one or two of whom may (or may not) be Healy and Sheahan. I'm not sure why Schwab attracts so much criticism, but I acknowledge that he does. As to this, I don't have a strong view because I'm not sure if the criticism is warranted or not. In short, I don't know.

But I don't think it's fair that so much unbalanced commentary is directed towards the club, even if there are some issues involving the CEO (none of which are readily apparent to those not in 'the know').

I don't think it is a deliberate strategy either Ron.

However I think Schwab draws criticism to the club which in itself is a problem. It is about time that those in the media that have issues come out and detail what they are. Denham for one (and he is not on his own) continually makes little back handed remarks but never backs them up. Put up or shut up!

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:31, Range Rover said:

Ask yourself this ... if we're 'irrelevant', why bother even mentioning us?

... i don't think we're irrelevant, and they don't think we're irrelevant

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:34, Deelirium said:

... i don't think we're irrelevant, and they don't think we're irrelevant

http://www.foxsports.com.au/afl/afl-premiership/melbourne-demons-are-irrelevant-demise-dates-back-to-dark-days-under-dean-bailey-says-paul-roos/story-e6frf3e3-1226439502922

  On 07/08/2012 at 01:31, rjay said:

I don't think it is a deliberate strategy either Ron.

However I think Schwab draws criticism to the club which in itself is a problem. It is about time that those in the media that have issues come out and detail what they are. Denham for one (and he is not on his own) continually makes little back handed remarks but never backs them up. Put up or shut up!

Let's not forget that Venom and Patrick's mate KB was given the bullet as Richmond head coach by one ... Cameron Schwab!