Well said, Binman. My personal preference is for us to absorb Casey and change the name of the club to Casey Demons. Whether it changes its name eventually to Melbourne Demons is a longer term matter of little consequence other than branding. What matters is having control over the development and treatment of listed MFC players.

Yep i reckon the Casey Demons would work. Of course the scorps may not be keen (or KC for that matter) but there seems to be some doubt about their viability even with money from MFC so one wonders what would happen to them if we pulled out. The Casey Demons based in that region would ensure the work we have done in that area can continued to be built on.

"Stupid mistakes across half-back – including a poorly placed switch from Luke Tapscott that Errol McConnell turned into a running, bouncing goal – were eagerly lapped up as Coburg took the game to the rousing applause of the small but loyal Coburg fans" - Peter Dinklage amongst them?

Herein lies the rub. They are not a development squad for the MFC - they are a stand alone football team that has an affiliation with the MFC. I assume their board, fans and coach want to win as many games as possible and ultimately flag. And fair enough. I doubt that lot would be prepared to lose every game if it meant an improved MFC. It is why we need a stand alone team.

Definite conflict of interest. I understand the cost component but how much pull does the MFC have in ensuring that Casey is a development ground for our senior team. Roos wants to turn Fitzy into a CHB would Welsh play him there at Casey ? Roos sees Hogan as a ruckman would Welsh play him 1st ruck or opt to use him as KP forward and kick a winning score ?

Yep i reckon the Casey Demons would work. Of course the scorps may not be keen (or KC for that matter) but there seems to be some doubt about their viability even with money from MFC so one wonders what would happen to them if we pulled out. The Casey Demons based in that region would ensure the work we have done in that area can continued to be built on.

While it's a bit off topic, you just need to look at all AFL clubs and the relationship they have with their "reserves" teams to see that we are a long way off where we should be.

Of the 10 Victorian-based clubs, 5 have standalone reserves teams, two more have had their VFL affiliate change their nicknames to give some recognition of the partnership, leaving the last three clubs (us, St Kilda and North) as the only clubs not to have a clear "connection" to their VFL affiliate. Even North's affiliate has "Roos" in their nickname, but that probably doesn't assist with my argument!

For me personally, I think it's as plain as day that we are doing this as a cash grab marketing/brand development ploy, but at the same time respecting the Casey team, and recognising their best interests. I think we have totally stuffed the business model up by going this way first, rather than focus on what's best for the development of players which in turn will improve our onfield performance.

I can only look at our onfiled performance since the Casey alignment was implemented to support my argument. I would really like to know how many new memberships we have generated from this alignment to see if it has actually been successful offield. I'm doubtful, but hope that it's something the club is looking at.

While it's a bit off topic, you just need to look at all AFL clubs and the relationship they have with their "reserves" teams to see that we are a long way off where we should be.

Of the 10 Victorian-based clubs, 5 have standalone reserves teams, two more have had their VFL affiliate change their nicknames to give some recognition of the partnership, leaving the last three clubs (us, St Kilda and North) as the only clubs not to have a clear "connection" to their VFL affiliate. Even North's affiliate has "Roos" in their nickname, but that probably doesn't assist with my argument!

For me personally, I think it's as plain as day that we are doing this as a cash grab marketing/brand development ploy, but at the same time respecting the Casey team, and recognising their best interests. I think we have totally stuffed the business model up by going this way first, rather than focus on what's best for the development of players which in turn will improve our onfield performance.

I can only look at our onfiled performance since the Casey alignment was implemented to support my argument. I would really like to know how many new memberships we have generated from this alignment to see if it has actually been successful offield. I'm doubtful, but hope that it's something the club is looking at.

And I think St Kilda is on the path to establishing its own standalone VFL team, too.

While there was an exodus of players from Casey at the end of season I don't think people realise that these were delisted MFC players.

Our better players for Casey last year were Couch (delisted), Magner (delisted),Sellar (delisted), Hogan (underage player now injured), Spencer (Played mostly AFL this year now injured), MacDonald (retired) and so on.

Once your time is up at the MFC there is now reason to stick around at Casey, you take the best opportunity you can get and that mean another VFL side or it might mean a move to another state to another comp.

You'll find an excuse to defend anything that happens to the club, Casey or MFC.

Fact is, the players don't respond to his bully boy tactics.

Simple solution: sack welsh, move on.

Only when it is untrue rubbish posted, check your posts first, maybe you don't respond to bully boy tactics, most of the MFC and Casey players don't seem to have a problem with it

And we replace Welsh with who?

Go on say one of our development coaches? What if the teams play on the same day?

Only when it is untrue rubbish posted, check your posts first, maybe you don't respond to bully boy tactics, most of the MFC and Casey players don't seem to have a problem with it

And we replace Welsh with who?

Go on say one of our development coaches? What if the teams play on the same day?

Question for Saty, have you been to training this week? I haven't seen any reports and feel like I'm in withdrawal.

We country bumpkins love the training reports.

Herein lies the rub. They are not a development squad for the MFC - they are a stand alone football team that has an affiliation with the MFC. I assume their board, fans and coach want to win as many games as possible and ultimately flag. And fair enough. I doubt that lot would be prepared to lose every game if it meant an improved MFC. It is why we need a stand alone team.

exactly... this is why I've been saying this now for 2 years, after realising we don't want extended season for our reserve players. This situation is Just BAD for too many reasons.

The worst, is that its turning people off football, at the grass roots level. The supporters are turning their backs on the game out of disgust, for making our players unavailable come mid August.

We are trashing the game, & any new people who want to become attached to it.

I am truly over the ways we treat the VFL competition, which I once went to every home game, now I couldn't be bothered attending.

This AFL mistreatment, will lose a generation of people, & they won't take the grandkids to the game.

Well said, Binman. My personal preference is for us to absorb Casey and change the name of the club to Casey Demons. Whether it changes its name eventually to Melbourne Demons is a longer term matter of little consequence other than branding. What matters is having control over the development and treatment of listed MFC players.

No, we need to split with them, so they can still hold their identity. If they fold, then they fold.

You'll find an excuse to defend anything that happens to the club, Casey or MFC.

Fact is, the players don't respond to his bully boy tactics.

Simple solution: sack welsh, move on.

Machsy the fact of the matter is that those players left due to financial reasons, Casey could not pay them what they were asking for.

Casey was and is suffering financial constraints that stop them being able to pay much more than minimum wages to their VFL listed players.

Welsh will not be sacked as the club can't afford to even if they wanted too.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

Rowan Welsh clearly missed the bit when Mark Neeld was coaching the MFC.

Only when it is untrue rubbish posted, check your posts first, maybe you don't respond to bully boy tactics, most of the MFC and Casey players don't seem to have a problem with it

And we replace Welsh with who?

Go on say one of our development coaches? What if the teams play on the same day?

I have a question.

Firstly - I haven't been to any Casey games nor have I have ever heard Welsh speak. All I can base my question on is a few reports on here and the article that was posted on this thread.

From this article alone I feel that Welsh, as a coach, overstepped on his comments ( whether they were taken out of context - I dont know). There are ways to deliver a message and I felt his comments were not professional at all.

I gather you have seen him up close live and if you have been to Casey games would have heard him in action. Looking at his comments in this article - is this how you perceive him live and in person ? Are his comments as per the article his modus operandi ?

Machsy the fact of the matter is that those players left due to financial reasons, Casey could not pay them what they were asking for.

Casey was and is suffering financial constraints that stop them being able to pay much more than minimum wages to their VFL listed players.

Welsh will not be sacked as the club can't afford to even if they wanted too.

But don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

As I understand it, thats true, but one of the biggest reasons they haven't made any money in recent times was partly because support was dropping off the Casey team.

We were making the finals often, only for Melbourne to pull many of the MFC listed players. So they had a holiday before Pre-season training.

It's wrong for the Casey team & partnership. The footy supporters Hate it.

The people pay their memberships, attend thru the year, feel connected to the team, then we take our players off them, heading into the Finals. Just plain wrong to do that!

The Casey people are now running their own food catering down there & making some more money. the Casey supporters hate our arrangement & most of the ones I've spoken to want to stand alone.

They're not happy with this partnership , & they weren't with the Saints either.

2 teams can play out of that facility with a little clever fixturing.

The only thing that interests me is whether the MFC is happy with the Casey arrangement and Welsh's coaching. If not, it needs to be fixed; if so, that's good enough for me.

Well. Put it this way. I don't think he is a prime contender for Roos' succession plan !! :-)))

Herein lies the rub. They are not a development squad for the MFC - they are a stand alone football team that has an affiliation with the MFC. I assume their board, fans and coach want to win as many games as possible and ultimately flag. And fair enough. I doubt that lot would be prepared to lose every game if it meant an improved MFC. It is why we need a stand alone team.

100% agree with this.

Most concerning thing I got from that article is the 2nds have the bye before the state game which means 3 weeks in between games - pretty sure this happened last year as well.

Most concerning thing I got from that article is the 2nds have the bye before the state game which means 3 weeks in between games - pretty sure this happened last year as well.

I think you are right about last year, they really need to keep playing through and forget the State game if this is to be a true feeder comp for the AFL.