Where is your evidence for the statement that "our membership numbers have plummetted"?

Melbourne's membership numbers fell from a record 35,459 in 2012 to 33,177 in 2013, a decline of 6.44%. Probably not enough to call it plummeting but certainly a bit of a worry. Given that membership numbers depend on team performance and expectations we probably need to look at trends rather than year by year figures.

They may have well thought of more possibilities than you realise given the precariousness of the MFC position. And to your point it was not a case of us not improving but getting far far worse. And no did or could have reasonably predicted that.

The AFL could have given MFC are far smarter kick in the pants than publicly undermining the Club's season ahead. Given our membership numbers have plummetted i am surprise I dont get more than "so what".

And when the season did fall in a hole early the AFL were quick to move in and install Jackson and jettison those that were apparently running. And dont worry I will always look hard for the substance in your posts amongst all the hyperbole its camouflaged in.

Of course you can 'reasonably predict' that it may be a reasonable possibility that a bad team for 6 years could get worse in year 7. In any case, did we have to get worse to merit a PP, or could we merit one if we just stayed as bad? I defer to your better knowledge of such matters, but my first sentence stands regardless.

I don't see that being told at the beginning of a season that "no matter how bad you are this year, you will not get a PP at year's end", would have much of an effect on membership in that year. We were told in September/October we wouldn't get a PP. Will that effect membership numbers in 2014? Probably not, though of course we won't be able to sift that effect from other more important ones such as the Roos' appointment.

Melbourne's membership numbers fell from a record 35,459 in 2012 to 33,177 in 2013, a decline of 6.44%. Probably not enough to call it plummeting but certainly a bit of a worry. Given that membership numbers depend on team performance and expectations we probably need to look at trends rather than year by year figures.

It would have plummeted had the AFL not stepped to arrest the free fall. The trend was looking particularly sick indeed.

Of course you can 'reasonably predict' that it may be a reasonable possibility that a bad team for 6 years could get worse in year 7. In any case, did we have to get worse to merit a PP, or could we merit one if we just stayed as bad? I defer to your better knowledge of such matters, but my first sentence stands regardless.

I don't see that being told at the beginning of a season that "no matter how bad you are this year, you will not get a PP at year's end", would have much of an effect on membership in that year. We were told in September/October we wouldn't get a PP. Will that effect membership numbers in 2014? Probably not, though of course we won't be able to sift that effect from other more important ones such as the Roos' appointment.

Given there were a range of possibilities for the season, then why would the AFL commit to no PP when one of the key factors was the reaction of other clubs to giving a club they believe a cheated a freebie PP in addition to providing gratis payouts to failed executives and install a CEO (Jackson) to start correcting a sinking ship.

In addition Sue, the tanking penalties were formally announced on 19 February.

Only two weeks before the ACC dropped the biggest bombshell on the AFL and the EFC in the supplements scandal. I would thought there was little time to predict the future when you are grappled to deal with the present (and they are still struggle).

Hindsight is a wonderful Sue especially when you are extremely selective on address the facts and situation at the time.

Given there were a range of possibilities for the season, then why would the AFL commit to no PP when one of the key factors was the reaction of other clubs to giving a club they believe a cheated a freebie PP in addition to providing gratis payouts to failed executives and install a CEO (Jackson) to start correcting a sinking ship.

In addition Sue, the tanking penalties were formally announced on 19 February.

Only two weeks before the ACC dropped the biggest bombshell on the AFL and the EFC in the supplements scandal. I would thought there was little time to predict the future when you are grappled to deal with the present (and they are still struggle).

Hindsight is a wonderful Sue especially when you are extremely selective on address the facts and situation at the time.

RR old bean, I already did a mea culpa and acknowledged the penalties were indeed announced in February - hence this discussion moved on to me saying the AFL as a wise managing body should have included the possibility of a poor MFC performance meriting a PP in their determination of the original tanking penalties. No hindsight needed there.

I repeat - a competent managing body thinks of all reasonable possibilities and covers these in the original penalties rather than appear to fold to pressure and add ad hoc extra penalties later on.

I don't see any hindsight in any of that.

RR old bean, I already did a mea culpa and acknowledged the penalties were indeed announced in February - hence this discussion moved on to me saying the AFL as a wise managing body should have included the possibility of a poor MFC performance meriting a PP in their determination of the original tanking penalties. No hindsight needed there.

I repeat - a competent managing body thinks of all reasonable possibilities and covers these in the original penalties rather than appear to fold to pressure and add ad hoc extra penalties later on.

I don't see any hindsight in any of that.

The PP was not just based on poor performance but from the reaction of the Club to the prospect of a club receiving a PP in addition to being bailed out from its own incompetence.

Your mea culpa should be extended for not taking into account not only the timing of issues but the context of the elephant that burst into the room that the AFL had to deal with and is still struggling with.

I am not surprised your cant see the rather obvious hindsight. Mind boggles.

It would have plummeted had the AFL not stepped to arrest the free fall. The trend was looking particularly sick indeed.

You originally said "[G]iven our membership numbers have plummetted" so make up your mind.

I stand by both comments. But thanks for nitpick.

spin it anyway you like rhino

we all know deep down the afl didn't give us a pp because of the tanking/disrepute issue

they in fact punished us twice - one officially and then for good measure once more unofficially

to make matters worse they didn't even have the transparency or guts to say so

whether you think it was the right thing or the moral thing, it was still a corruption of process

whether we received other assistance is another issue

of course we have come to expect this type of back hand management from the afl

sue is right and you as usual are stubborn and blinkered

i'll not lose any sleep over the afl's pp decision, nor your opinion

I stand by both comments. But thanks for nitpick.

The mind boggles

It's clear that membership has plummeted and not plummeted simultaneously and at the same time.

at what % does a decline become a plummet?

at what % does a decline become a plummet?

was also wondering this point....

p.s Instead of taking away Essendon's Premiership points, they should have shared them out between us and GWS and evening up the competition.

Surely the fairest thing would be for every team playing the Cheetahs to start with five goals on the board before the game starts?

Only for the next three seasons I suggest - although others may take a more long term view

AFL kept lead man out of the dock

THE AFL abandoned its case against Essendon doctor Bruce Reid after learning its lead investigator Brett Clothier could be publicly cross-examined.

...

Court documents obtained by The Australian reveal that on September 17, lawyers for Dr Reid formally served Mr Clothier, the AFL's manager of integrity services, with a notice of intention to cross-examine him at hearing.

The case was due to return to court on September 19.

Had the AFL not aborted its pursuit of Dr Reid, Mr Clothier could have been questioned under oath by Dr Reid's counsel Ross Gilles QC about any aspect of the AFL investigation into Essendon.

...

The Australian last week revealed that Mr Clothier produced a key piece of evidence against Hird -- his account of how he warned the Essendon coach about peptides at a meeting on August 5, 2011 -- nearly two years after the meeting took place.

Interesting. I would also have asked him about how the AFL conducted all of its investigations and whether it was common practice for investigators to leak controversial information from questionable sources to the media. Don't know if he would have been particularly happy to hear such a question or that this line of questioning would be allowed by the judge but I'd throw it in.

spin it anyway you like rhino

we all know deep down the afl didn't give us a pp because of the tanking/disrepute issue

they in fact punished us twice - one officially and then for good measure once more unofficially

to make matters worse they didn't even have the transparency or guts to say so

whether you think it was the right thing or the moral thing, it was still a corruption of process

whether we received other assistance is another issue

of course we have come to expect this type of back hand management from the afl

sue is right and you as usual are stubborn and blinkered

i'll not lose any sleep over the afl's pp decision, nor your opinion

I completely agree with DC. We did get punished twice by not getting a PP and it now it would be hypocritical to ever award another PP in the future under any criteria (considering a two win season doesn't qualify). The focus however should be away from MFC and asking the hard questions about their (the AFL) handling of EFC and Hird which deserves a lot more scrutiny that it is getting. Question is: "Who scrutinises the AFL"? (or AD).

I completely agree with DC. We did get punished twice by not getting a PP and it now it would be hypocritical to ever award another PP in the future under any criteria (considering a two win season doesn't qualify). The focus however should be away from MFC and asking the hard questions about their (the AFL) handling of EFC and Hird which deserves a lot more scrutiny that it is getting. Question is: "Who scrutinises the AFL"? (or AD).

who ever does question the gods ??

I am not surprised your cant see the rather obvious hindsight. Mind boggles.

Ah, the penny finally drops. I now understand that it is only with hindsight that I could say that the AFL should have finalised the penalties in February. I should have known at the time that the AFL was too incompetent to foresee that a PP might become an issue, and would have to either add penalties or withstand pressure from other clubs and the press 7 months later.

Sorry I didn't express doubts about the AFL at the time. But silly me, I was naive enough to assume that the tanking issue was closed in February and to assume the AFL had reasonable management foresight and decent processes. I'm now disabused of the latter at least.

Ah, the penny finally drops. I now understand that it is only with hindsight that I could say that the AFL should have finalised the penalties in February. I should have known at the time that the AFL was too incompetent to foresee that a PP might become an issue, and would have to either add penalties or withstand pressure from other clubs and the press 7 months later.

Sorry I didn't express doubts about the AFL at the time. But silly me, I was naive enough to assume that the tanking issue was closed in February and to assume the AFL had reasonable management foresight and decent processes. I'm now disabused of the latter at least.

sue - the AFL have always made up rules on the run so nothing has changed

Melbourne's membership numbers fell from a record 35,459 in 2012 to 33,177 in 2013, a decline of 6.44%. Probably not enough to call it plummeting but certainly a bit of a worry. Given that membership numbers depend on team performance and expectations we probably need to look at trends rather than year by year figures.

After six years of watching our football team descend into a shambles it was a miracle to reach record membership in 2012

For it to only fall just over 6% last year with everything hanging over the club is a credit to both the efficiency of the membership department and to the resilience of the members

With a couple of morale boosting early season wins next year I say 40,000 isn't out of reach

I stand by both comments. But thanks for nitpick.

This is why a debate with you is pointless - a seemingly innocuous, yet incongruous, point that you should just abandon - and yet you double down and up the snark.

Waiting for the snark to this post...

This is why a debate with you is pointless - a seemingly innocuous, yet incongruous, point that you should just abandon - and yet you double down and up the snark.

Waiting for the snark to this post...

Just for reference, whats a snark?

Just for reference, whats a snark?

A snide or sarcastic remark or something in a Lewis Caroll story

This is why a debate with you is pointless - a seemingly innocuous, yet incongruous, point that you should just abandon - and yet you double down and up the snark.

Waiting for the snark to this post...

Just pushed the Like button

A snide or sarcastic remark or something in a Lewis Caroll story

Thanks BB wasnt in my thesauras