McClardy's been a bit quiet recently hasn't he?

Wonder if Peter Jackson has told him to keep a low profile for a while.

The footy reporters are getting worse every year. The article failed to identify the main reasons for our poor attendances for home matched, we have played Port, GWS, Gold Coast, WCE as home matches with the GC at the worst time slot in the AFL season Mothers day 4.40. You replace that with our away matches Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Brisbane and Fremantle and all of the sudden we average over 30,000 per game. The remainder of the year we have home games against Brisbane, Western Bulldogs, North, Fremantle, Hawks, Pies and Sydney

The AFL have created a two tiered competition, the big clubs get the prime matches which equates to increase sponsership, attendances and the Corporate entertainment. Even a winning MFC team would not have increased our numbers by a great deal. Membership different story, the fence sitters would have not brought a membership based on on field performance and no one can blame them for that.

One thing we do have which North and the Bulldogs don't are a lot of closest supporters they do go to the footy when times are good. I remember one year we averaged over 40,000 at our home games I think 2004 and for most of the ND years we have good crowd averages, winning brings out every supporter but our membership was lower than current levels.

Now I know that there are a lot of people who are going to say I'm making this up, but let's look at the situation logically. What the seeming majority on this forum are saying is that Neeld needs to be sacked, and the board is at fault, and also that there may be a loss in the order of $5 million, and this is the boards fault. The general tone of things is that the board has to sack Neeld and that to fail to do so is to fail the club. However, the same people calling for this are also calling for the board to be held accountable for the massive financial losses incurred if they DO sack the coach. Let's look at a little logic tree.

1) Board keeps Neeld as coach ==> Losses total around $1.5 million ==> A) Losses continue ==>Fans want board gone for keeping Neeld on. or B.) Team improves and wins 6-7 games on the back half ==> Everyone talks up the great prospects for next year and has a happy off season.

2) Board sacks Need ==> Payouts to coaching staff and new coaches bring loss closer to $5 million ==> Fans want board gone for incurring huge loss.

That being the case, it seems to me that if the board want to keep their jobs, the only possible way to do it is to back Neeld and hope he turns things around in the second half of the season. This also the only way that we have a slight chance of keeping the finances vaguely under control. The club simply can not afford to sack Neeld (and probably a lot of his assistants) and bring in another coach who will probably be on higher pay. Far better to ride out the next few rounds and see if things improve. Don't forget that we are still doing better that we were last year at this point when we hadn't won a single game.

Edit: You do know we have two very winnable games right after the bye don't you? The saints are going downhill rapidly and the bulldogs are as much a rabble as we are.

Edited May 29, 201312 yr by RalphiusMaximus

gotta spend (in our case lose) money to make money...look at carlton

Ralph, when you have some spare time, can you come around to my place?

I have these pig things flying around my backyard and i need your advice on what to do

I have already corralled a modest amount of money ( all I can afford ) for the inevitable begging request

To save the Dees once again.

My guess will be around October when DM has left and we have announced the new Coach.

Closest the MFC will get to optimism in 2013.

J's Ch---- this is familiar

The club simply can not afford to sack Neeld (and probably a lot of his assistants) and bring in another coach who will probably be on higher pay.

It's this as much as anything behind this 5 million figure. The "higher pay" you referred to could easily get to a million a year based on the figures being thrown around.

But you're right, we currently can't afford to sack Neeld and some/all of his assistants. At the moment. You'd expect that there's a fair bit of back-room discussion going on between the AFL and the club.

Edited May 29, 201312 yr by bing181

It's this as much as anything behind this 5 million figure. The "higher pay" you referred to could easily get to a million a year based on the figures being thrown around.

But you're right, we currently can't afford to sack Neeld and some/all of his assistants. At the moment. You'd expect that there's a fair bit of back-room discussion going on between the AFL and the club.

You would hope bing but based on past experienced I am not confident!

It's this as much as anything behind this 5 million figure. The "higher pay" you referred to could easily get to a million a year based on the figures being thrown around.

But you're right, we currently can't afford to sack Neeld and some/all of his assistants. At the moment. You'd expect that there's a fair bit of back-room discussion going on between the AFL and the club.

We can't afford not to 'bing'.

But you're right, we currently can't afford to sack Neeld and some/all of his assistants. At the moment. You'd expect that there's a fair bit of back-room discussion going on between the AFL and the club.

On the basis of the past 31 games we can't afford to keep him.

And the mess resulting in us potentially losing 5 million ( amount could be more or less) are a result of the disastrous decisions made by this Board and Administration.

This Club is haemorrhaging on and off the field.

I would hope the AFL takes a LT view in respect of MFC and will not be frozen from making the right and necessary decisions because we can't afford to pay. There is no doubt the AFL will need to provide financial, human and game law support to MFC to fix this problem.

I would hope the incumbent Board does not obstruct the AFL from implementing the necessary decisions. They have done enough to date.

The footy reporters are getting worse every year. The article failed to identify the main reasons for our poor attendances for home matched, we have played Port, GWS, Gold Coast, WCE as home matches with the GC at the worst time slot in the AFL season Mothers day 4.40. You replace that with our away matches Carlton, Essendon, Richmond, Brisbane and Fremantle and all of the sudden we average over 30,000 per game. The remainder of the year we have home games against Brisbane, Western Bulldogs, North, Fremantle, Hawks, Pies and Sydney

The AFL have created a two tiered competition, the big clubs get the prime matches which equates to increase sponsership, attendances and the Corporate entertainment. Even a winning MFC team would not have increased our numbers by a great deal. Membership different story, the fence sitters would have not brought a membership based on on field performance and no one can blame them for that.

One thing we do have which North and the Bulldogs don't are a lot of closest supporters they do go to the footy when times are good. I remember one year we averaged over 40,000 at our home games I think 2004 and for most of the ND years we have good crowd averages, winning brings out every supporter but our membership was lower than current levels.

The main reason for low crowds is not the competition. Please stop deflecting blame. Melbourne was pulling 40,000 to the 'G in 2004, 2004 in games against West Coast, Adelaide, etc.

The reason is that the team plays an insipid brand of football.

Ralph, when you have some spare time, can you come around to my place?

I have these pig things flying around my backyard and i need your advice on what to do

I note you don't try to address the logic in my post. I take that as you conceding the point. Thank you.

You know what annoys me about these articles. They keep going back to Paul Gardner for comments. You had your chance and didnt make it work. Your great idea to get into China failed and you made errors to. Shut up and go back to your work.

well done melbourne supporters - lets send the club a messagge by sending our club broke. Now there is passion!

Not only are we the softest club to play against, we have the softest supporters and perhaps the most dimwitted.

One must ask, do we deserve to have a club. I am begining to think not.

the club is constantly screwing the supporters in the a%$e. its been going on for so long now that we are no longer begging for it to stop. we just want some lube

well done melbourne supporters - lets send the club a messagge by sending our club broke. Now there is passion!

Not only are we the softest club to play against, we have the softest supporters and perhaps the most dimwitted.

One must ask, do we deserve to have a club. I am begining to think not.

Not a fair comment

The members have supported for so many yrs........Im a 16yr member straight & along with many others have paid each year to support our club

Foundation members cleared a 5 mill debt

Yeah we are soft!

Start pointing the finger at the board, footy dept,coaches,recruiters, player development staff who for the last decade have had so many early draft picks & our crap developmnet has resulted in us having the worst midfield ever!

Point the finger at Neeld & comp who drove a stake through our senior players,stripped them of leadership group,treated Green our captain with no respect & put 2 young Captains who just dont look ready, made our B&F in 2011 Moloney leave, & will cause a mass exodus at year end!

The players hate this guy & have no respect for him!

Edited May 29, 201312 yr by dees64

the club is constantly screwing the supporters in the a%$e. its been going on for so long now that we are no longer begging for it to stop. we just want some lube

BBO will be the first in the club phone room calling members if that's the case