As painful as it is to recognise, the playing field is not even. Clubs like Collingwood and WCE have so many advantages over us, the dogs, roos and the saints etc.. the 'big' Vic clubs can compete, but everything that happens at the MFC is compromised due to our financial position. Do you think we have the best doctors and physios in Melbourne? Of course we don't! They are at Collingwood, Hawthorn and Essendon because they have the financial clout to headhunt the best in every aspect of running a football club. I don't care it what it is, from the website geek to the pretty girl at reception to the grizzly old boot studder. Are you aware that the Eagles membership base has a waiting list to get on it? In other words, they couldn't possibly be making more revenue from that point of view. You know how the basic principle of 'supply and demand' means that that he who has the in-demand product can capitilise? Look at us, we are, as a business, in the red, and we have been for a long time. Is it any wonder that with this situation in place we get high draft picks that end up being 'also-rans'? This is why it is difficult to attract any player or coach of high quality because we are viewed, and rightly so, as a sinking ship, amateur hour, diet-coke football club.

I'm not interested in whose fault it is, or what has happened in the past - it's just the way it us. It obviously has a LOT to do with the fact that for the last 50 years we have been easybeats, punctuated only by some brief moments where we looked like we might challenge somebody. In that time our momentum, our swagger, and our status in the competition has gradually eroded. The last 6 years has hit us very hard, harder now than we realised at the time.. at least part of Bailey's tenure gave everyone a bit of hope and stopped the flame from burning out (think smashing Sydney, draw/1 point loss to Coll), but that glimmer of hope has now been extinguished in spectacular fashion by the ball-hurtingly bad results that have occurred in the Neeld era. Although weak in the knees and staggering, we are still standing. The fact that we basically started this game of football gives us a heritage value which is the only reason we haven't folded by now. I am dubious as to how much that means to supporters of other clubs but clearly it means a lot to us and the AFL. That's why the AFL have backed us and are continuing to back us despite our repeated failure over and over again. Who remembers a few years back where Stynesy had a meeting with Demetriou and was told basically that our brand stands for nothing? Hearing that interview, at that point, I thought we were stuffed, I really thought 'gee this might be the end'. Somehow, despite things only getting worse since then, the AFL seems to be still going in to bat for us, something we should all be grateful of because we certainly have not earned it, either by our on-field play or by the way have managed the administration of the football club.

Why do you think there is such thing as the CBF? The 'competitive balance fund'? It's because the AFL realises the inequity. They accept the fact that playing us on Sunday at 4.40 against Freo on Mother's day is unfair vs putting us against Collingwood on Friday night. The problem is that the CBF is a joke compared to the real disadvantage we are at. Why do you think the reverend Neale Daniher came out talking about a cap on football department expenditure in the same way there is a salary cap? Because he understood that the salary cap is in place to try to give a 'fair go' to every club regardless of their financial status, but unbridled expenditure in the footy department brings that supposed equality down a number of pegs. Apart from the financial side, look at the fact that a two horse town means 50% share instead of 10% in marketing revenue and support, and when you go there to play them it is a vastly different proposition than what a 'home' game means to us. Playing or Coaching at WCE is like wearing silk slippers and a nice dressing gown while at the MFC and other smaller vic clubs it's like sleeping on the street and getting your hands dirty to claw at whatever advantage you can get. This is the way it has been for a long time and it will stay that way until we can ever get to the point that we have enough on-field success, enough members and enough gate receipts to create adequate sponsorship and media support, advantageous fixturing etc.

It's not impossible, both Hawthorn and Geelong were able to raise themselves from the lower regarded clubs to powerhouses, they did on the back of (unsurprisingly) high quality performance on field. I don't think there is any doubt that our supporter base in particular will explode positively with any on-field success, you only need to look at the numbers for memberships and attendances from 2006 or so when we were a football side worth going to see, we only marginally dragged behind these 'big' clubs. Make no mistake that we, even more than most clubs, will see a swell of support if we start winning games.

This is why it is unfathomable to me that any supporter could question the (admittedly, probably-inflated) cost of getting the coach (and player(s) for the matter) that we need. In the context of the above, there is no way in hell we can ever reverse the cycle of failure we are on unless we invest right now on the correct people to make it happen. I know nobody rates Dermie, but he was spot-on the other day when he said that we always seem to look for a 'bargain' coach, somebody that will come cheap and easy and turn out to be a success. Bailey and Neeld have shown us, in the hardest possible way, that it doesn't work like that.

The proposition that is now on offer for senior coach includes: an understanding that you are going to have to try to compete with the big boys using half the expenditure of most of your competitors, and youre going to have rubbish crowds, and half your players are thinking about taking more money elsewhere, and your supporter base is about as irate and devoid of patience as you can possibly imagine, your crowds are tiny, and your general respect in the league is laughable and the media takes delight in stomping you at every opportunity. Somebody like Worsfold (or any other silver-spoon alumni) has no idea what it means to do it tough, like so many (ie Daniher, Bailey, Neeld) have found out the hard way. We need the absolute best, indomitable, unshakeable old war horse we can get this time.

It's all well & good to get the right coach, but without having a competent & success driven board willing to work harder & look to find a competitive advantage over the rest of the clubs, finding the right coach will mean nothing in the long term. Great clubs are defined by great people at the top with vision & without that, this club will go nowhere. I suggest the club look at making some positions on the board paid positions so that the MFC has a chance of growing rather than fighting for the scraps from the AFL's table. It would allow the club to better define its direction into the future & would put us ahead of other clubs in terms of professionalism in governance. We can no longer risk the future of the club by making stop gap appointments that are convenient for people on the board or relying on MFC board members recommendations to step up to the plate to fill board positions. The quality of people just don't seem to be there at the moment & even if they are how will we get ahead of every other club as they can only commit so much of there time? How will our board define a way to gain a competitive advantage over the rest?

It's a very good write up, makes a lot of sense and is certainly something we (and any future coaching staff) probably need to keep at the front of our minds at all times. Also if it wasn't that late I'd give such a good post the reply it deserves.

However, I found it so foot ticklingly funny to see the thread title "Coaching MFC: the big picture" with the first post listed by "Bonkers".

It really seemed to sum up our world.

It's all well & good to get the right coach, but without having a competent & success driven board willing to work harder & look to find a competitive advantage over the rest of the clubs, finding the right coach will mean nothing in the long term. Great clubs are defined by great people at the top with vision & without that, this club will go nowhere. I suggest the club look at making some positions on the board paid positions so that the MFC has a chance of growing rather than fighting for the scraps from the AFL's table. It would allow the club to better define its direction into the future & would put us ahead of other clubs in terms of professionalism in governance. We can no longer risk the future of the club by making stop gap appointments that are convenient for people on the board or relying on MFC board members recommendations to step up to the plate to fill board positions. The quality of people just don't seem to be there at the moment & even if they are how will we get ahead of every other club as they can only commit so much of there time? How will our board define a way to gain a competitive advantage over the rest?

What would you pay a board member, and for how many positions?

Everything has to click if you want a successful club.We need strong and competent leadership from the boardroom and whichever coach we appoint be it a Roos or a Eade they need to be backed and given time to get this club competitive.Some of you will say that maybe Neeld wasn't given enough time but he was a rookie.Let him undergo AFL coaching training at another club!We are the Melbourne Football club the oldest club in the AFL not some training centre for learner coaches.This job requires someone who knows what it takes to get a football club functioning.You don't become a club like Geelong overnight.Geelong are the club they are today because of years of honest hard work and endeavor from the top right down to the bottom and it took Bomber Thompson a few years to get Geelong going and competing for and winning flags.

Edited June 19, 201312 yr by Irish Demon

What would you pay a board member, and for how many positions?

Hypothetically the two positions would be President & Football Director. If we can pay Craig 400k to be director of Sports performance then why not absolve that role & pay someone like Parkin to be Football director. I'm tipping you could pay the presidents position less as there will be candidates willing to do it for free, however the paid position will allow them to invest their efforts full time.

If we paid directors on a performance based salary. That wouldn't cost us a brass razoo.