http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-04-30/mclachlan-the-chief

Good or bad?

I'm undecided at this stage.

It will just get more expensive....

Watch this space.

I won't say or even come close to saying it's the end of the club. That's hyperbole in the extreme. I will say that we need to make a decent fist of the opportunities given to us by Demetriou. I get the feeling that McLachlan may not be as big a supporter of the MFC as AD was. With a new TV deal coming up, he mightn't be as concerned about our ongoing viability as AD was.

Edited April 30, 201411 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

Watch this space.

I won't say or even come close to saying it's the end of the club. That's hyperbole in the extreme. I will say that we need to make a decent fist of the opportunities given to us by Demetriou. I get the feeling that McLachlan may not be as big a supporter of the MFC as AD was. With a new TV deal coming up, he mightn't be as concerned about our ongoing viability as AD was.

It may be the kick in the ass the club needs...

He said he would be "a different leader, with a different approach" to Demetriou, and the shape and structure of the AFL would change.

hmmmmm........time will tell

Watch this space.

I won't say or even come close to saying it's the end of the club. That's hyperbole in the extreme. I will say that we need to make a decent fist of the opportunities given to us by Demetriou. I get the feeling that McLachlan may not be as big a supporter of the MFC as AD was. With a new TV deal coming up, he mightn't be as concerned about our ongoing viability as AD was.

Among the most pressing challenges he said he faced were supporting the weaker clubs, and engaging with fans.

this implies he might be better than dimwit in this area.................but who knows

Good or bad?

I'm undecided at this stage.

As Machsy said, I too am undecided.

Although I can certainly say Andrew Demetriou drove me mental and a fresh face in the position is pleasing.

I just hope he can reconnect the game back to the fans a steer away of the ridiculous commercialization resulting in increased ticket, food, and drink prices.

Gone of the days (over the Demetriou era) of fence banging and enjoying a relatively priced pie and full strength beer whilst sitting in the stands.

He may be a big supporter of the blazer.

Seriously, it seems like the sensible choice. He's had an extensive apprenticeship. I expect he'll be less dictatorial than Demetriou (although I probably would have said that about anyone appointed to replace Demetriou except, maybe, Kim Jong Un or Vladimir Putin) but that doesn't mean there will be any significant change in direction.

There has been a media push for Mike Fitzpatrick to move on, too. I'd like to see the Chairman remain for at least one more year to allow the new CEO to get settled first. A settled AFL executive is the second most important issue for the MFC right now (the first being a settled MFC executive). Any major shocks at AFL level can't be helpful to the MFC's position.

What a well kept secret that turned out to be ! :-)

Only time can tell if it will be good, bad or neutral for us.

I just hope he can bring some of the integrity into the game that Vlad loved to talk about but manifestly failed to deliver, and move towards a "level playing field" in all respects ie "draw", draft and salary cap, MRP and umpiring standards, drug policies etc etc

PS: does he have a footy playing background?

Edited April 30, 201411 yr by monoccular

PS: does he have a footy playing background?

Gil was a gun player in the VAFA.

It is interesting that he has the support of both Eddie (rich club) and Brayshaw (poor club).

heard he was going to introduce polo matches as half time entertainment

Gil was a gun player in the VAFA.

It is interesting that he has the support of both Eddie (rich club) and Brayshaw (poor club).

both those to$$ers knew he would get the gong and are just latching on to the teat

Gil was a gun player in the VAFA.

It is interesting that he has the support of both Eddie (rich club) and Brayshaw (poor club).

Brayshaw is a sycophant though.

heard he was going to introduce polo matches as half time entertainment

Jolly good show!

Sorry, stereotype fix.

I cringe whenever I hear Melbourne supporters slam AD. He has been one of the club's best allies in recent years considering the hole we dug OURSELVES into.

There are further inroads to make with equalisation which hopefully McLachlan acknowledges, but with AD gone it's time for the club to to wear its big boy pants and put the last decade to rest.

Gil might now be able to say, I apologise over that farce of a press conference on the Melbourne tanking affair, but Vlad put me up to it in an effort to save face. Now I am in the chair, I promise such a charade will never happen again.

Gil was a gun player in the VAFA.

It is interesting that he has the support of both Eddie (rich club) and Brayshaw (poor club).

Or, "It is interesting that he has the support of both Eddie (the Nine Network) and Brayshaw (the NIne Network)."

TV rights will be important. I would have thought both McGuire and Brayshaw would appreciate that a good relationship with McLachlan may not help the Nine Network to regain the football broadcast rights...but a bad relationship may make it more difficult.

McLaughlin did seem to be favourable to a PP for us last year from memory so hopefully he backs it up this year.

McLaughlin did seem to be favourable to a PP for us last year from memory so hopefully he backs it up this year.

No....hopefully we will string together a run of victories in the second part of the season and not be in the hunt for any. That would be a far far better outcome than for us to get (yet more) priority picks. It would show that we are going places.

Gil was a gun player in the VAFA.

.....

As a mater of interest, which club?

As long as the AFL is fully committed to equalisation, I doubt there'll be much change to policy as it affects Melbourne.

McLachlan's greatest immediate challenge will be sorting out ever-increasing costs for the average mum-and-dad football goer, handling their dissatisfaction, and restoring equity between them and the corporates.

I actually liked Demetriou. His replacement could have been worse, like Adrian Anderson but he saw the writing on the wall and left.

As long as the AFL is fully committed to equalisation, I doubt there'll be much change to policy as it affects Melbourne.

McLachlan's greatest immediate challenge will be sorting out ever-increasing costs for the average mum-and-dad football goer, handling their dissatisfaction, and restoring equity between them and the corporates.

I actually liked Demetriou. His replacement could have been worse, like Adrian Anderson but he saw the writing on the wall and left.

What is "equalisation" though, really? It's pretty ambiguous.

I can understand equal scheduling, equal divide of league profits, equal access to media, but what we actually see is not "equalisation", it's essentially redistribution.

Clubs like Melbourne have relied on the league not through a lack of being "equal" or having the same access to talent or anything like that: it's been diabolical decisions and mismanagement.

So long as the league props up clubs like Melbourne, there will always be erratic, unstable change happening around it. Even if you see what Roos and Jackson have done as being good, the reality is that it is for many of the players the third regime change in their careers.

The AFL has essentially bailed out ineptness by funding it with the profits generated by the success of a few. I understand Eddie's frustrations because success at the Pies will be a different product to success at the Dees, which has had the AFL essentially control its direction.

Melbourne was so bad the league had to take over. I'd be pretty [censored] if I worked my arse off to make something successful, only to see inept clubs like Melbourne get a leg-up from the league.

The league doesn't want to lose 30,000 fans as it would if Melbourne moved, folded, merged, whatever, but I don't agree that long-term redistribution in the answer. Eventually Melbourne will need to stand on its own two feet and if it doesn't, the league should not feel obliged to help it again.

For the good of the sport and league, teams like Melbourne need to be competitive both on and off the field, on its OWN terms. If it can't build something from what it has now, it will most definitely be the end of the club as we know it now, and it might be for the better.

Edited April 30, 201411 yr by Cudi_420

As a mater of interest, which club?

Uni Blues

No....hopefully we will string together a run of victories in the second part of the season and not be in the hunt for any. That would be a far far better outcome than for us to get (yet more) priority picks. It would show that we are going places.

Yes, that would be a better outcome but I'm not holding my breath on that unless we can get Garland and Hogan off the injury list.

What is "equalisation" though, really? It's pretty ambiguous.

I can understand equal scheduling, equal divide of league profits, equal access to media, but what we actually see is not "equalisation", it's essentially redistribution.

Clubs like Melbourne have relied on the league not through a lack of being "equal" or having the same access to talent or anything like that: it's been diabolical decisions and mismanagement.

So long as the league props up clubs like Melbourne, there will always be erratic, unstable change happening around it. Even if you see what Roos and Jackson have done as being good, the reality is that it is for many of the players the third regime change in their careers.

The AFL has essentially bailed out ineptness by funding it with the profits generated by the success of a few. I understand Eddie's frustrations because success at the Pies will be a different product to success at the Dees, which has had the AFL essentially control its direction.

Melbourne was so bad the league had to take over. I'd be pretty [censored] if I worked my arse off to make something successful, only to see inept clubs like Melbourne get a leg-up from the league.

The league doesn't want to lose 30,000 fans as it would if Melbourne moved, folded, merged, whatever, but I don't agree that long-term redistribution in the answer. Eventually Melbourne will need to stand on its own two feet and if it doesn't, the league should not feel obliged to help it again.

For the good of the sport and league, teams like Melbourne need to be competitive both on and off the field, on its OWN terms. If it can't build something from what it has now, it will most definitely be the end of the club as we know it now, and it might be for the better.

If we stop getting home games against 7 of the 8 non-Vic clubs and start getting regular home games against Essendon, Carlton & Richmond we might have a better chance at becoming self-sufficient.