I do hate the argument "oldest club" "started the game" have the name "Melbourne"

These are not reasons why our club should exist. It should it exist due to its own viability and its support from its members.

If we can't achieve that with the AFL help we already get due to their crappy draw.

We need to stand on our own.

They're not reasons for Melbourne to trade on to survive,,, but they are reasons why the AFL should not let this club go under... but the AFL are very good at weakening its own.

When we no longer represent commercial value to the AFL we will fold. Until this time we must be supported and hopefully restored to the proud club we once were.

if through our own hard work and AFL assitance we fail to achieve this by the next TV rights deal however I suspect we are dead. We may find that the overall AFL product is worth more without us than with us. At which time the lights egt turned off and the doors get closed, once and for all.

Leach talks about ‘moral hazard’ and his views are similar to those of a vast number of football followers. But Leach and others are ignorant and completely miss the point. Mistakes are not made by clubs – but by the individuals who are in charge of those clubs. Our fans are suffering because of the mistakes of Stynes, Schwab, Bailey, Neeld, Prendegast and Cameron, who have all since departed the club (or will do soon).

If the AFL does not support the poorer clubs they will dwindle and die. Eventually passionate football people like me will be without teams and the game’s following will shrink. We aren’t ever going to jump on board and support another club. And there will always be relatively poor clubs and teams at the bottom of the ladder, so where does it end? Anyone who has played Monopoly before can tell you the answer to that.

While I don't want to snipe personally back at this Leach person, if he is speaking as a St Kilda supporter he should probably take a deep breath. Even during a period of continuous high performance on field, and some of the games most recognisable marquee players, they failed to establish a solid financial base.

Before that recent positive surge they barely struggled along as a semi-viable club for extended periods, both financially and on field. And that was even while having, once again, some of the games greatest and most respected players.

Now, they still have some of the top veteran players in the game (Riewoldt, Milne, Dal Santo, Hayes, and Jones) providing the core of their team, but have exactly one more win than Melbourne, and one of their two wins was also over GWS. They can argue that they have at least been more competitive, with smaller margins, but what will happen to that when those five 30 year olds retire?

I'd rather be a Demon than a Saint right now, honestly. Both for future on-field prospects and when considering St Kilda's apparent failure to cash in on recent success financially.

Also, while it is hard to compare fixtures and crowds, Melbourne's games against both Carlton and Essendon drew larger crowds than St Kilda's.

Melbourne's off-field fundamentals are surprisingly solid - there's material to work with as soon as the on-field element is respectable again.

Sorry about the spelling - LEECH

1. Any of various chiefly aquatic bloodsucking or carnivorous annelid worms of the class Hirudinea, of which one species (Hirudo medicinalis) was formerly used by physicians to bleed patients and is now sometimes used as a temporary aid to circulation during surgical reattachment of a body part.

2. One that preys on or clings to another; a parasite.

Leach talks about ‘moral hazard’ and his views are similar to those of a vast number of football followers. But Leach and others are ignorant and completely miss the point. Mistakes are not made by clubs – but by the individuals who are in charge of those clubs. Our fans are suffering because of the mistakes of Stynes, Schwab, Bailey, Neeld, Prendegast and Cameron, who have all since departed the club (or will do soon).

If the AFL does not support the poorer clubs they will dwindle and die. Eventually passionate football people like me will be without teams and the game’s following will shrink. We aren’t ever going to jump on board and support another club. And there will always be relatively poor clubs and teams at the bottom of the ladder, so where does it end? Anyone who has played Monopoly before can tell you the answer to that.

Daniher, corcoran, & the rest of the footy dept, back then.

Edited June 6, 201312 yr by dee-luded

Francis leach is also bald.

With all the horrible (often deserving) things that have been said about us the past 6 years THIS is the one you kick up a stink about?
Crikey.

Bottom line, being the oldest club with the name Melbourne should not ensure our survival. We almost merged in 84 and 96 so things could already be different.

As far as the media goes, we are easy targets. Winning changes that

Edited June 5, 201312 yr by Waltham33

While I don't want to snipe personally back at this Leach person, if he is speaking as a St Kilda supporter he should probably take a deep breath. Even during a period of continuous high performance on field, and some of the games most recognisable marquee players, they failed to establish a solid financial base.

Before that recent positive surge they barely struggled along as a semi-viable club for extended periods, both financially and on field. And that was even while having, once again, some of the games greatest and most respected players.

Now, they still have some of the top veteran players in the game (Riewoldt, Milne, Dal Santo, Hayes, and Jones) providing the core of their team, but have exactly one more win than Melbourne, and one of their two wins was also over GWS. They can argue that they have at least been more competitive, with smaller margins, but what will happen to that when those five 30 year olds retire?

I'd rather be a Demon than a Saint right now, honestly. Both for future on-field prospects and when considering St Kilda's apparent failure to cash in on recent success financially.

Also, while it is hard to compare fixtures and crowds, Melbourne's games against both Carlton and Essendon drew larger crowds than St Kilda's.

Melbourne's off-field fundamentals are surprisingly solid - there's material to work with as soon as the on-field element is respectable again.

Good, considered post LG. Your point is well made. it is not unusual for those at the bottom of the ladder to fight amongst themselves most fiercely - it is a matter of survival. Look at Australia's immigration patterns over the years. Presumably if Leach believes he can facilitate Melbourne to fold then there will be less pressure on St Kilda. Personally, I think the opposite is true. Once the AFL accepts that the club numbers can be reduced, then three or four are in danger. Relocation is a more likely option: Tasmania, Darwin, NZ, Manila (an old joke!). Is it easier to imagine the Tassie Saints than the Tassie Demons (née Devils!)?

Edited June 5, 201312 yr by Dees2014

Leach's argument is simple. Less wealthy clubs that battle to get by and don't blow themselves up financially like MFC have good reason to think that "special funding" given to MFC could otherwise have been allocated to them.

If MFC was treading water and wasn't so dysfunctional, I would be pizzed about a struggling club that got into trouble through its own incompetence getting special funding.

I am not sure why he is copping all the mindless flack here.

Also noted that Caro has supported MFC for special funding and that the basis to do so is justified. Not surprised the Caro agenda monkeys are quiet on that. Hmmm.