Just swell... more bad press.

[Jaded No More 68,913]

We have 10 000 members from last year that have not signed up

And it's because our supporters are generally weak, fickle and conditional, that we are struggling badly and will continue to struggle.

We have got to find a new supporter base to tap into (maybe the Casey Fields move will help) or we will die.

If we have to rely on our current supporter group to buy memberships and turn up, it will never happen.

If those extra 10,000 supporters signed up, we would have well over 30,000 members, which is a reasonable enough figure.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

If that's the case, then it should have been communicated to all and sundry when Bailey took over. The club lives in a shroud of secrecy. That goes for Gardner with our financial position, and Bailey with our on-field position.

Both issues have been discussed on this site and Ology for years now. The financial statements are on the public record. Its more like a shroud of ignorance.

No, what I'm saying is that we can't afford to go backwards in order to go forwards. We should be building on the current strengths of our playing list, not trying to mould players into what they're not. Did Geelong totally rebuild their list after years of finishing in the middle rungs, and then having a disastrous year in 2006?

We dont have a choice. The shortcomings of this list regardless of the game plan are obvious and have been present for 2 to 3 years now and outweigh whatever strengths there are.

Geelong did rebuild and commenced when Bomber started and there was a big clean out. And you know what he copped it to for a long time even as late as 2006.

[praha 11,240]

And you think North are out of the real trouble?

I think Brayshaw has created a false sense of reality and snubbed the opportunity to actively negotiate an inevitable outcome.

QFT. They're just as much a rabble as we are.

But this isn't "bad press". It's truthful. If we were anyone but "Melbourne", we'd be gone. Even that might not save us in the long run. Personally, I can't see us being around much longer. It's been over 10 years since the merge talks we're in the same situation still. They'll always be a "Melbourne", but we'll merge/become a different team soon.

I'd be up for a North/Melb merger. It's clear that the two teams can't generate enough financially to survive comfortably down here. Both have to realise they'll never be powerhouses. Be logical and reasonable and create your own powerhouse. I'm sick of always been in debt, always being in trouble. It's never going to change.

[Whispering_Jack 30,054]

I think you miss the point

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. The point I'm making is that Wilson's article is written as told to her by the AFL. The example of the gaffe about our attendances wasn't nitpcking - it was drawn to show that she didn't even research her facts properly before going to print. I have no doubt we are going to have problems with home ground attendances as the season continues - who's going to go to our home game at Freo in a few weeks time if we maintain our present form?

The message from the AFL is that unless we do something soon to shape up, we might have to prepare ourselves for something drastic. IMO that includes as one possibility becoming the Gold Coast Demons.

[beelzebub 23,364]

A reality is ..3 of those games were at the G.. 2 were effectively home games not 1 !!

[praha 11,240]

Ok here are my constructive ideas.

1) Accept our position. Accept we are no longer elite (start again McNamee) and act accordingly.

If we didn't realise that 20 years ago, then that means we've been going in the wrong direction for 20 years.

2) Pull out of the new stadium deal. I don't want to be third in line for facilities after the Storm and Victory and I don't want to train on the same oval as Collingwood, I have no doubt they will have priority as to times.

Part of the stadium deal was to have a relationship with the Storm and Victory and have a base in the city of Melbourne.

3) Strike an agreement and more importantly embrace Casey Fields. This requires:

- Affiliating with the Casey scorpions

- Training there all year round

- Moving operational facilities there as well

- Working with the AFL and City of Casey to build a couple stands so we can host home games againt interstate sides there

- Let the PR machine begin "the return of suburban football"

I like this idea, but strongly doubt the AFL would approve of games there.

The advantages of this plan as I see it are:

- A crowd of 10,000-15,000 won't be a disaster because there will be no break even point. With a partnership with the council surely all reciepts will go to the club.

- MCC members who give a [censored] about the club will have an insentive to buy a membership because they actually need entry

That won't matter. They still won't buy a membership.

Cranbourne may be a long way out but at least it is part of Melbourne. To me it is a more viable option then Gold Coast or Tasmania which no body has mentioned yet (but is a possibility).

I think there is a bigger chance of us moving to the GC then playing in Casey

[diesel 420]

This reinforces my argument that sustained on-field success is critical. It doesn't mean that we have to win a flag every other year, but it's critical to be winning games and making the finals. This is why I'm so damning of Bailey. His actions go beyond the playing field. We can't afford to have a coach who's vision of success is long term.

We made finals three years running and fell in a heap striaght afterwards. So sustained 'reasonable' success hasn't lifted us any closer to long term sustainability.

And sorry mate, but where has DB told us to expect a period of no success? He has said we will be going out to win every match. We are struggling at the moment mainly because his vision is a change to the way we play because the way we played (under ND) showed we can be there abouts, but not good enough for the sustained success we all seek.

[mo64 5,874]

Both issues have been discussed on this site and Ology for years now. The financial statements are on the public record. Its more like a shroud of ignorance.

I'm referring to last year, when Gardner, half way through the season Gardner, stated that we were on track to record a $1m profit.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I'm referring to last year, when Gardner, half way through the season Gardner, stated that we were on track to record a $1m profit.

At that time the Board actually believed that was the issue. The fact that we did not maintain the profit and that issue of the initial seeds of the profit fall should have been identified and quantified by Harris. Another reason I am glad he is gone. After an initial good start attendances fell away and the impact of the cost of Harris's redundancies did not come forward until closer to year end.

I dont think that was deliberate deception. Anyone knows it stupid move to do and Gardner is not stupid to lie about that.

Regardless our financial position has been precarious. Harris should have realise that the poor showing in the early games were going to cut deep.

[Hards 2]

We made finals three years running and fell in a heap striaght afterwards. So sustained 'reasonable' success hasn't lifted us any closer to long term sustainability.

We didn't capitalise on it, on or off the field.

Melbourne people for a variety of reasons are very fickle - in years where we are down we'll struggle to get 5,000 MFC supporters to a game at the MCG, when we're up we can pull 5k to training.

IMO we've taken the wrong tack on the field, throwing away the building we started after 2002 when the footy dept correctly identified weaknesses in our team that needed fixing, despite making a SF that year. The decisions made then led us to three consecutive finals, and we threw that away at the start of 07 (injuries masked it slightly) and now we've solidified that at the start of 08, playing football in a way that doesn't fit the team that we've built in the last five years. We weren't in Hawthorn's position of needing to absolutely overhaul the way we were doing things, we needed to fill the gaps and continuing building, not begin rebuilding.

Off field I don't believe we've marketed ourselves strongly enough, and have focused on things like China rather than solidifying our base and fighting for position here in Melbourne. As much as its easy to say that we have more chance of getting people from China than battling 9 other clubs in Victoria, but people we get in Victoria are supporters for life, not for five minutes. If we needed any more evidence the failure of the Melbourne Tigers attempt to go into China (where basketball has a large and ever-growing presence due to Yao Ming) should have been enough to say it was a ridiculous suggestion.

We sold out our players by selling home games interstate to Brisbane. Now its been floated that we'll do that again to the Gold Coast. Who knows, maybe that game in Brisbane cost us a top 4 spot in 04, or a home final in 05? This year we play Sydney in Canberra, again giving away what is effectively a home game, as Sydney have played there every year since 03 and we've played there twice.

The MFC has a culture now that says that we'll never be strong. Its a culture that says go to China instead of fight in Melbourne, that says merge instead of find a way to go it alone, that says that the players did the best they could despite our facilities instead of saying that the facilities are no excuse and they need to fight harder, that says that there's no point turning up or no point signing up. It's a culture that has existed for thirty years, and it isn't just being created now to explain the last thirty years, it needs to be diagnosed.

Maybe we missed a chance in not hiring Sheedy, a man whose reputation alone would have changed our culture immidiately? Was the coaching subcommittee afraid it would be criticised for taking the "obvious" option if Sheedy didn't work?

Make it clear, I'm not having a crack and any one or any group of Board members, Administrators etc, many of the problems we face today are ingrained in poor decisions of the past, and have created the situation that has led to poor decisions of today.

Some wags might not like what I've written, but its time to be realistic. There is no future for us in Canberra, the Gold Coast, China or the South Pole, our future is in Melbourne, and its time to reconnect with the base and begin to connect with the next generation of MFC supporters and members. The only way to do that is to sell the club to the public, get the players out into the schools, get them onto the footy show, get some positive publicity for the club, instead of sitting waiting for an unconnected member of the media or a journalist or a Demonland poster to respond for us.

Unfortunately what goes along with that is having a competitive team on the field. And that we don't have right now. I'm still of the belief that the coach needs to take stock of what he has got and work out the best way to mould his style with the style of the players, and not throw away the building that we did for the last five years. We needed a fresh approach from a new coach, for sure, but we didn't need a complete rebuild. Talk to the AFL clubs around the league, to a club they say Melbourne is a top eight side, not a bottoming out side.

That's my two cents.

[sideshowbob 0]

I don't think I'm missing the point at all. The point I'm making is that Wilson's article is written as told to her by the AFL. The example of the gaffe about our attendances wasn't nitpcking - it was drawn to show that she didn't even research her facts properly before going to print. I have no doubt we are going to have problems with home ground attendances as the season continues - who's going to go to our home game at Freo in a few weeks time if we maintain our present form?

The message from the AFL is that unless we do something soon to shape up, we might have to prepare ourselves for something drastic. IMO that includes as one possibility becoming the Gold Coast Demons.

No, you still miss the point. Caro didn't make a gaffe. Caro was spot on - our home attendances are pathetic (and have been for some time) and we are 0 and 4!

Ewww, I just defended Caro. I guess i won't get an invite onto the Footy Show now...

[Real Demon 232]

I'm really stuggling to to get my head around this Casey idea.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Casey idea came to life because we just happened to play the Roos out there in a preseason game.

As a result, and with mounting bad press on the club about a disjointed preseason training arrangement, the club has thought......."hey, what about a base at Casey?"

I know the club to date has only considered it as an alternative to a preseason base until our new home is ready, and I think that's a good idea.

But let's not kid ourselves.........Casey isn't our golden ticket. Do we know anything about the demographics out there, whether we indeed have much of a supporter base in the outer east? Being in an area, doesn't simply equal getting members and supporters in that area.........otherwise the Saints wouldn't be up and relocating to Frankston. It's not like we go out there (Casey) one day, and pick up 10,000 members / supporters the next!

The Hawks already had some identity with Waverley, having played home games out there for a number of years, as well as winning a premiership out there. We have no relationship or real reason to connect with the residents of Casey, most of whom would already have their club allegiances, and wouldn't simply change because the MFC moved in on their doorstep.

Any permanent move to any location sure be done with the appropriate planning and due diligence. We can't afford to manage the club on the run anymore!

[rpfc 28,407]

I still believe we need to say "come back to the club now, or there will not be a club."

There is only one saving grace here - The recent turnover (thanks to the impossibly difficult to work with Steve Haris) of around 90% is one large reason for the loss we will post.

However, the awful deal that we will get with the MCC and the AFL is going to be a massive problem going forward. We need corporate sponsorship, that's why Gardner went for McNamee. We need to mine new ground (sponsors that sre not in AFL) and any bloke in football wouldn't know where to start.

PS. Alot of us are frustrated because of the 'false bravado and posturing' as Garry Lyon put it. I want the club to tell us we are in the sh!t and give us some ideas of how we can help - Other than buying a membership, although if they said this, membership would spike.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

I still believe we need to say "come back to the club now, or there will not be a club."

Other than buying a membership, although if they said this, membership would spike.

You can only do that once otherwise the message goes stale if you do it repeatedly and it becomes a cry wolf issue.

You are right we might get a spike in membership but is it sustainable in the next year? And memberships alone will not save us.

And if you are going to say it do not do it 2 months before the membership cut off date. Timing is all.

But like I said it is not the long term solution. Its expends alot of emotion without addressing the problem.

Another thought we have been precarious since the merger. Its in all the press how badly we are going what more incentive do people need to buy memberships?

[Rogue 585]

Membership #s are interesting. How many do you actually need to have? What's an acceptable total? Does it need to grow every year? Is it all relative to what other Clubs are achieving?

I read an interesting article that was comparing the football codes in Australia not too long ago - I think it was in one of the Melb dailies. In the article, the author asserted that the AFL Club with the least number of members still has more members than any of the rugby sides. I haven't checked this myself, but if true it's quite interesting.

Fwiw, I don't think a 'call to arms' is going to be too effective while we're playing the type of footy we have been dishing up over the past eight weeks.

Talk to the AFL clubs around the league, to a club they say Melbourne is a top eight side, not a bottoming out side.

At the start of the season I saw an article featuring captains from all sides in the AFL. In the article, they had to nominate teams - apart from themselves - that would make finals. From memory, we were at the bottom.

PS. Why do members have to pay to be part of the Cheer Squad?

[demonique 314]

Sorry Jack, I'm agreeing with Rhino on this one.

It's so blatantly obvious. Crowd numbers have never that great. Dont play interstate clubs at home. The numbers have been damning for years. Port vs Melb a few years ago on Mothers Day when Byron laid out Junior, crowd was bearly 10000.

Look at Geelong. They play down here (Geelong) against low drawing opposition because Cooky and Costa etc identified that they would still fill Kardinia Park with Geelong supporters. And play other home game at Docklands and get crowds of 40000+.

So, how does the club build itself to that level? Not up to me, I'm not on the Board

I feel that is exactly what you do.Geelong is that template, but we move out of the G and move in at Cranbourne, play those interstaters there and the so called biggies at the G.

If that fails to excite get ready for the Gold Coast Demons!!

[Whispering_Jack 30,054]

No, you still miss the point. Caro didn't make a gaffe. Caro was spot on - our home attendances are pathetic (and have been for some time) and we are 0 and 4!

Ewww, I just defended Caro. I guess i won't get an invite onto the Footy Show now...

Yeah right. I see that you understand perfectly what I've been saying.

Incidentally, yo seem to think its indicative of good journalistic research to write that our "home ground attendances have been poor" when, in fact we've played only one home game this year and attracted 27,000 against the Western Bulldogs (instead of last home game against the Dogs which attracted 18,946).

Again, the point I'm making is that we are under notice from the AFL to lift our game. The rest including attendance figures is just window dressing if we don't get our act together both on and off the field.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

Membership #s are interesting. How many do you actually need to have? What's an acceptable total? Does it need to grow every year? Is it all relative to what other Clubs are achieving?

I read an interesting article that was comparing the football codes in Australia not too long ago - I think it was in one of the Melb dailies. In the article, the author asserted that the AFL Club with the least number of members still has more members than any of the rugby sides. I haven't checked this myself, but if true it's quite interesting.

Fwiw, I don't think a 'call to arms' is going to be too effective while we're playing the type of footy we have been dishing up over the past eight weeks.

Its not so much the numbers of members (thats good) but the $$$$ they bring through the type of membership they buy. Remember 4 MCC/MFC members at $40 is the same dollars as almost a full paying member. The other issue is how else in footy gear, raffles and other Club things do the members contribute. I would suggest that is low for a number of reasons. One of the major ones lack of facilities.

I heard from a CFO that the real leverage of profitability for a Club is sponsorship. That is not to decry membership but the marginal profit is higher.

The difference with rugby league and its Clubs is it is silently financed and funded from News Corp. Take that away and that sport dies. The AFL has the TV rights which is much much more lucrative than the NRL rights.

[sideshowbob 0]

yo seem to think its indicative of good journalistic research to write that our "home ground attendances have been poor" when, in fact we've played only one home game this year and attracted 27,000 against the Western Bulldogs (instead of last home game against the Dogs which attracted 18,946).

I think we're reaching a crossed-purposes point, but I feel I have to post one more time. Just because this year's crowd was bigger doesn't mean it isn't poor. Have a look at this list and try and tell me Caroline Wilson isn't correct with her statement that our home attendances are poor. Despite the fact we have had one home game this season her conclusion remains valid. There are only four times we got over 30,000 - two of them were marquee games - the season opener and the queens birthday match.

R22 v Carlton - 26,156

R19 v Bulldogs - 18,946 (TD)

R18 v Sydney - 11,266 (MO)

R15 v Brisbane - 22,708 (G)

R11 v Collingwood - 70,660

R10 v Adelaide - 23,657

R9 v Kangaroos - 30,662

R6 v Port Adelaide - 16,266

R4 v Fremantle - 16,654

R3 v Geelong - 38,438

R1 v St.Kilda - 49,490

I think her research was just fine.

[beelzebub 23,364]

Its not so much the numbers of members (thats good) but the $$$$ they bring through the type of membership they buy.

......

I heard from a CFO that the real leverage of profitability for a Club is sponsorship. That is not to decry membership but the marginal profit is higher.

..........

The difference with rugby league and its Clubs is it is silently financed and funded from News Corp.

Totally in agreement.. There's many different apples out there ..even if they are all apples !!

Have said for years the key is to exist despite membership..it will only ever be the icing on any cake for us..where as for some clubs its the cake. Somehow more sponsorhip needs to be solicited. If PMac can swing this he will be a genius

[demon3165 2,718]

If and if, CW is correct, what I find more amazing is that this was pushed out in the first place by the AFL, gee I think Nth Melb had the same pressure put on them earlier in the year, when will they learn to shut up and not go to the press.

Yes we have our problems, I seem to recall that PM spoke to the AFL before becoming our CEO, so either they did not inform him of our position or they they somehow forgot until now. Would have thought that they would have waited to see how the club goes during the season with the new set-up before Vlad and his cronies gets involved.

Or are they trying to help us fly the flag.....mmmmmmm plot thickens.

[Demon Head 273]

I think we're reaching a crossed-purposes point, but I feel I have to post one more time. Just because this year's crowd was bigger doesn't mean it isn't poor. Have a look at this list and try and tell me Caroline Wilson isn't correct with her statement that our home attendances are poor. Despite the fact we have had one home game this season her conclusion remains valid. There are only four times we got over 30,000 - two of them were marquee games - the season opener and the queens birthday match.

R22 v Carlton - 26,156

R19 v Bulldogs - 18,946 (TD)

R18 v Sydney - 11,266 (MO)

R15 v Brisbane - 22,708 (G)

R11 v Collingwood - 70,660

R10 v Adelaide - 23,657

R9 v Kangaroos - 30,662

R6 v Port Adelaide - 16,266

R4 v Fremantle - 16,654

R3 v Geelong - 38,438

R1 v St.Kilda - 49,490

I think her research was just fine.

What research has she done? You're quoting last year's figures. She's talking about this year. WJ's not talking about whether the crowd was poor for one individual game but that she committed a gaffe by not ascertaining how many home games the club's played this year.

[sideshowbob 0]

You're quoting last year's figures. She's talking about this year. WJ's not talking about whether the crowd was poor for one individual game but that she committed a gaffe by not ascertaining how many home games the club's played this year.

I am quoting last year's figures. Well done. Just point to the bit in the article where she says she's only talking about this year and then i'll go away.

[diesel 420]

I am quoting last year's figures. Well done. Just point to the bit in the article where she says she's only talking about this year and then i'll go away.

Melbourne's projected membership of 30,000 is currently struggling at just over 24,000; its home-game attendances have been poor with a 0-4 win-loss ratio to date.

Mate, it's sandwiched between references to this year. No one is denying our crowds are [censored] poor but it is not a fact this year, yet.

[Timmuns 16]

10,000 from last year not signed up yet.... very disappointing