NAB CUP 3: ST. KILDA

[stuie 7,374]

you are so 2 Dimensional Stuie.

You do not look at the Big Picture.

The Board + The Players =THE CLUB

FGS understand this.

You're argument is all floss and no substance WYL. You just come up with cliches like "big picture", "culture", "turning a blind eye", "186", but provide no actual basis or proof for what you're saying. That's a very weak thing to do to the club you apparently support. We have had countless players and board members in the last 50 years, so the club has changed in that time, many times, so tell me HOW our onfield performances in the last 5 years were directly effected by the board? Give me some facts, some evidence, no more cop out cliches.

[Roost It 1,434]

Do you reckon we'll have as big a turnover as we just had? Or do you think it'll depend on the season? My first thought would be we wouldn't see anywhere near as big a change to the list as it would possibly imply Neeld wasn't getting anywhere. At some stage he needs to be able to develop and change what we have.

Big turnover

Rodan unlikely to play next year

Sellar

Spencer

McDonald

Sylvia

Fitzpatrick

Not all of Byrnes, Kent, Clisby and Stark will make it

There will be one or two others

[stuie 7,374]

Big turnover

Rodan unlikely to play next year

Sellar

Spencer

McDonald

Sylvia

Fitzpatrick

Not all of Byrnes, Kent, Clisby and Stark will make it

There will be one or two others

Yeah probably a pretty spot on list I reckon Roost. I'm assuming you mean MacDonald not McDonald? So probably looking at about 8ish, but most are fringe players anyway, so only a "kind of" big turnover if you follow me? Reckon Spencer may depend on what happens with Gawn, and Sellar may depend on Pedersen. Do you know the contract details of that list? Sylvia is a FA, not 100% sure on the rest (although I assume Rodan and Byrnes are on 1 year each).

[Demonsterative 3,017]

The only resinence from 186 is from the supporters who cant move on! The MFC is a completely different place to that day that led too 186. Yes some players and administrators may still exist, but that does not mean the club isnt singing from the same hym book now. If any players exist from this period and is being a continuing pain in the arse, Neeld would see past this and they will be banished to Casey until their contract is complete.

WYL you harp on about 186 and use this as the means to provoke change. Stuie asked you a simple quesion. Who should the club be rid of that is still is at the club. Name players! From your constant reference to 186 I would suggest you have put some thought into this. Cough up and answer the question. If you cant, stop referring to this game

[rhaz 342]

Big turnover

Rodan unlikely to play next year

Sellar

Spencer

McDonald

Sylvia

Fitzpatrick

Not all of Byrnes, Kent, Clisby and Stark will make it

There will be one or two others

Surely you mean MacDonald.

Kent won't be turned over, it's his first year out of the national draft, thus a 2 year contract.

[FarNorthernD 5,861]

you are so 2 Dimensional Stuie.

You do not look at the Big Picture.

The Board + The Players =THE CLUB

FGS understand this.

The Club is me, and you, and all the other Members who have supported Melbourne for the past 5, 15 or 50+ years.

Since i started to follow the Demons in the early 70s there has been numerous Boards and probably hundreds of players go through the place

They will continue to come and go but without supporters there is no reason for the players to play or for the board to exist

The Club is us

[Bossdog 2,002]

Can we please play a game in 2013 before supporters get rid of half the list....Good Grief.....

[Sir Why You Little 36,626]

The only resinence from 186 is from the supporters who cant move on! The MFC is a completely different place to that day that led too 186. Yes some players and administrators may still exist, but that does not mean the club isnt singing from the same hym book now. If any players exist from this period and is being a continuing pain in the arse, Neeld would see past this and they will be banished to Casey until their contract is complete.

WYL you harp on about 186 and use this as the means to provoke change. Stuie asked you a simple quesion. Who should the club be rid of that is still is at the club. Name players! From your constant reference to 186 I would suggest you have put some thought into this. Cough up and answer the question. If you cant, stop referring to this game

don't read what you don't like.

You just like disagreeing.

I am not going to name names before the season starts. We all know who the microscope is on.

I am happy with what i have said and do not have to justify anything to you.

Head back in the sand....

[Bossdog 2,002]

don't read what you don't like.

You just like disagreeing.

I am not going to name names before the season starts. We all know who the microscope is on.

I am happy with what i have said and do not have to justify anything to you.

Head back in the sand....

Hey...WYL......I like the view in the sand......Much better......Less heartache.......You must try it some time....lol...

[stuie 7,374]

don't read what you don't like.

You just like disagreeing.

I am not going to name names before the season starts. We all know who the microscope is on.

I am happy with what i have said and do not have to justify anything to you.

Head back in the sand....

Once again, no proof, no evidence, no basis at all for what you are saying. All I can guess is that you have a personal problem with someone at the club and you're trying to de-stabilize them/the club. I'm not unconvincable, no one is untouchable, but you have given me absolutely no reason to believe anything you're trying to say.

[Demonsterative 3,017]

don't read what you don't like.

You just like disagreeing.

I am not going to name names before the season starts. We all know who the microscope is on.

I am happy with what i have said and do not have to justify anything to you.

Head back in the sand....

don't read what you don't like.

You just like disagreeing.

I am not going to name names before the season starts. We all know who the microscope is on.

I am happy with what i have said and do not have to justify anything to you.

Head back in the sand....

I have no idea who the microscope is on other than (maybe) Davey and Sylvia. But Neeld keeps on selecting Sylvia, so maybe not?? Pls enlightne me on who you say 'everyone knows'. Again, another broad comment with no substance

[Sir Why You Little 36,626]

I have no idea who the microscope is on other than (maybe) Davey and Sylvia. But Neeld keeps on selecting Sylvia, so maybe not?? Pls enlightne me on who you say 'everyone knows'. Again, another broad comment with no substance

Why should i reveal anything before the season starts?

Just so you can have a feeding frenzy everytime you log on.

Observe the games this year. Better still watch Round 17 2011 again.

People seem to forget how bad it was. A loss by 31 goals.

Real Horror Show Like

[Sir Why You Little 36,626]

Once again, no proof, no evidence, no basis at all for what you are saying. All I can guess is that you have a personal problem with someone at the club and you're trying to de-stabilize them/the club. I'm not unconvincable, no one is untouchable, but you have given me absolutely no reason to believe anything you're trying to say.

No Stuie wrong again. I have no vendetta or personal grievence against members of the board. Never met any of them actually.

I would actually like this board to be stable for a decade so the coach can do his job.

But this board were around pre 186 (31 goal loss) and post that disgraceful day so i do expect them to lift their game, as i do the players.

One in all in Stuie.

It is we who pay these people. Remember that.

All i want is value for money.

[Chook 14,997]

No Stuie wrong again. I have no vendetta or personal grievence against members of the board. Never met any of them actually.

I would actually like this board to be stable for a decade so the coach can do his job.

But this board were around pre 186 (31 goal loss) and post that disgraceful day so i do expect them to lift their game, as i do the players.

One in all in Stuie.

It is we who pay these people. Remember that.

All i want is value for money.

By "This board," I immediately thought you meant Demonland. If we're relying on Demonland's stability, then I think we're in real trouble!

[Bitter but optimistic 22,064]

No Stuie wrong again. I have no vendetta or personal grievence against members of the board. Never met any of them actually.

I would actually like this board to be stable for a decade so the coach can do his job.

But this board were around pre 186 (31 goal loss) and post that disgraceful day so i do expect them to lift their game, as i do the players.

One in all in Stuie.

It is we who pay these people. Remember that.

All i want is value for money.

You make an important point YWL. People like yourself, myself and most others on this site (even Stuie) will pay up everyear because we love the club. However, my son is not paying his membership this year because he does not think Melbourne provide "value for money". It is that economic rationalist type of argument. Many young educated professionals think this way as do sponsors.

[stuie 7,374]

You make an important point YWL. People like yourself, myself and most others on this site (even Stuie) will pay up everyear because we love the club. However, my son is not paying his membership this year because he does not think Melbourne provide "value for money". It is that economic rationalist type of argument. Many young educated professionals think this way as do sponsors.

I agree with the concept of value for money, heck even I had creeping thoughts about not renewing, although never seriously considered it. But when I think value for money I think of the players and the performances, NOT who's on the board.

[Cheap Seats 3,310]

Sorry to Hijack this thread........ but watching the Hawks v Tigers game and the inerpritation of the umpires in that game compared to Dees v Saints really frustrates me.

Knee contact, holding the ball rules all not called in the last qtr of the Tigers game...... anyway umpiring it's as a big of joke as Aussie cricket IMO

Anyway if we lose to GC on the weekend are we gong to sack Neeld??? haha

[Roost It 1,434]

Surely you mean MacDonald.

Kent won't be turned over, it's his first year out of the national draft, thus a 2 year contract.

I do

[Roost It 1,434]

Yeah probably a pretty spot on list I reckon Roost. I'm assuming you mean MacDonald not McDonald? So probably looking at about 8ish, but most are fringe players anyway, so only a "kind of" big turnover if you follow me? Reckon Spencer may depend on what happens with Gawn, and Sellar may depend on Pedersen. Do you know the contract details of that list? Sylvia is a FA, not 100% sure on the rest (although I assume Rodan and Byrnes are on 1 year each).

Don't know contract details. I chose Pedersen to stay over Sellar based on nothing more than a Hunch

[stuie 7,374]

Don't know contract details. I chose Pedersen to stay over Sellar based on nothing more than a Hunch

I had that same hunch before the NAB games, now I'm not as sure... Long way to go tho.

[Sir Why You Little 36,626]

You make an important point YWL. People like yourself, myself and most others on this site (even Stuie) will pay up everyear because we love the club. However, my son is not paying his membership this year because he does not think Melbourne provide "value for money". It is that economic rationalist type of argument. Many young educated professionals think this way as do sponsors.

it is an important facet to keep in mind. The club must give value for money.

Lately, since 2007 it just hasn't happened when you look at other clubs, who perform every year.

The WHOLE club is responsible.

No other club would allow 22 players to commit 186. Why did we allow it to fester with no explanation from the board??

The members deserve better.

Last saturday was encouraging. But the second Q was garbage.

Yes it was a practise game. BUT STOP PRACTISING CRAP.

I have supported this flaky organization for over 4 decades. When i was in Year 7 we were flaky....

[jumbo returns 6,703]

Some names that have pulled the wool over most supporter's eyes will be gone.

Some top 5 draft picks will go - not up to it.

[Wilbur 447]

its great to see so much optomism in this thread

[jumbo returns 6,703]

its great to see so much optomism in this thread

It's been pragmatic.

The game has moved on, but this club has stagnated.

Out - dated training methods, poor leadership/player development, low expectations, lack of discipline.

Neeld is addressing all these issues and it'll take a couple of years. I know the jury's out on whether he can coach or not, but I'm reading things like 'press?'

Press? Fmd, the previous coaching panel thought that 'press' was newspapers or something you do to your shirts.

[Webber 10,433]

Can we please play a game in 2013 before supporters get rid of half the list....Good Grief.....

Too true!!!!!! And WHY Sellar? He has been impressive this preseason, and it's assumed he's going to make way for Pederson. Pederson has been significantly less impressive. He's older, and has about the same AFL games experience, so why this radical assumption? Sellar's just been getting better for us, and seems to be gaining some confidence......