Just swell... more bad press.

[sideshowbob 0]

So you support 5 games at Carrara?

I think the point is that we'd rather watch 5 games at Cararra than not have a team, if they are the only two choices available.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

So you support 5 games at Carrara?

I would prefer we played in Melbourne.

I am asking what are the alternatives that are available to MFC within the time frame to cover the $1m.

[red&blue&true 0]

That ad on page 4 is an absolutely embarrassing disgrace. It is creating some ridiculous artifical "grudge" match out of a game that last year was a farce between idiot and incompetent. I almost spat my weetbix out when I saw it. Truly, it is a worry.

No-one has picked up on the fact that Gardner, in the same article, has suggested that it may be that we play 5 games at Carrara from next year. Is he frigging joking? Is he seriously suggesting that after being in the presidency for this long, he is going to leave us a financial mess, an on-field mess, with no identity and 5 out of 11 home games at Carrara?

Paul Gardner has to stop the innuendo about his future and state whether he is intending to continue beyond this year. If not, then who is he trying to annoint? If yes, then at least we know so the coup can begin. He has to go.

And its rnd 5! - All the other clubs were advertising agressivly back in November!... seems to me they gambled we'd actually look like a team at some point in the nab or season proper and then start advertising??... now that we are a total rabble they are left trying to make out this Carlton game as some sort of "return match" from the most pathetic match in history...WHY WOULD THIS BE PROMOTED!?!?

also, i listen to SEN and ive heard 0 adverts in the last 5 months, (prob heard around 300 hawks adds) i saw there was a thread the other day talkin bout an advert on AW thats good, but does the club even try and connect with the elements of the club that listen to SEN or read the Herald Sun?, cos we are a nonentity in that paper as well..

Why would in an environment of relocation and expansion our president talk about playing as many as 5 games on the Gold Coast?

A scare tactic??.. geez i hope so.. if thats a realistic option to him he has to go or we r stuffed

[Pates 9,536]

I think it's time for transparency, i'm sick of getting the information about our clubs predicament in small streams through Caro. Everytime a new piece of information about where we are at comes out i'm thinking, "why can't the club just be honest with us"? I know it's their job to keep faith with the members but perhaps they are underestimating how much faith we have given them, and how much we care for this club.

A year or two ago PG was always on the front foot, getting into new ideas and being excited about our club, now he seems to be on the back foot and being questioned about things that he has concealed from the supporters. At the end of 2007 the Kangas board came out and told exactly what needed to be done in order for their club to survive, the supporters responded and now they have over 30,000 members. I hope when the time come that Melbourne says, "we need your help" it won't be too late.

TELL US HOW WE CAN HELP!!!

[Choko 493]

So the Board that promised so much to its voters has left us reduced to a choice between folding and playing half our home games on the Gold Coast? If that's the case, then 2 things: 1. The Board has to admit it has failed, and 2. It's the start of the end anyway, because the AFL gun remains pointed at our heads.

And on alternatives, there are many. Some we are exploring (like the China initiative), others have to do with embracing the top end of town and our traditional supporter base and actually giving them value so that they want to spend money on the club. Another is to start giving proper value to sponsors like other clubs do. Another is a consistent branding message so everyone knows who we are, what we stand for, etc... (like the bloods, or the dogs even, who have turned it around). And there must be 1000 more.I wasn't voted in to look at it - it is their mandate.

[Choko 493]

I think it's time for transparency, i'm sick of getting the information about our clubs predicament in small streams through Caro. Everytime a new piece of information about where we are at comes out i'm thinking, "why can't the club just be honest with us"? I know it's their job to keep faith with the members but perhaps they are underestimating how much faith we have given them, and how much we care for this club.

A year or two ago PG was always on the front foot, getting into new ideas and being excited about our club, now he seems to be on the back foot and being questioned about things that he has concealed from the supporters. At the end of 2007 the Kangas board came out and told exactly what needed to be done in order for their club to survive, the supporters responded and now they have over 30,000 members. I hope when the time come that Melbourne says, "we need your help" it won't be too late.

TELL US HOW WE CAN HELP!!!

100%. You won't get it though. It's Good Press Gardner. We have our heads in the sand.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

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.

[red&blue&true 0]

They arent out of trouble, but when they can point to 32k members they arent "in the gun" so to speak.

Because the perception is they have support, in an environment of expansion perception is everything - the AFL need playing lists for their new clubs, they don't care where they get them from, being on the bottom of the victorian club "membership ladder" meant we were always going to be targetted this year, despite the fact we receive way less "charity" from the AFL then either the dogs or the roos.

The AFL's attack dogs (Wilson, Smith, KB, Gerard Healy, etc) will be kicking us when we are down all year trying to convince us that its inevitable we will be unviable. if the roos can stand up to them i hope we can too.

[the fork 357]

Whilst this article states little we don't already know or have gathered, it does put the facts straight for the 10000 or so past members that are yet to sign up. Whilst being possibly the most fickle, these "supporters" are certainly the most potentially important "supporters" the club has. For the simple fact that they unfortunately are the short-term saviors of our club.

Far from preaching to the converted I choose to see Wilson’s article as a war cry to those 10000. Now they know how dire things are for us. The facts are there in black and white, the club you love needs you, not to thrive, but just survive. If they are true supporters they will immediately sign-up... Wont they?

Continuing from a previous thread earlier in the week, I believe that we need to break this club to its bare bones so that a meaningful cultural rebuild can begin. We need to have the axe swung and about to fall before we will stand and fight. If the sad and potentially catastrophic facts in this article don't cause a surge in our membership, then there will be further evidence that we are not fit to survive.

If you are a non-member and you have read this article then there is only one thing left to do. Go get you credit card, sit down and call: (03) 9652 1150.

We need to stick, to stay close and fight.

[45HG 1,539]

We are in a lot of trouble, but i honestly don't see how quickly some of those people feel we have to turn it around.

Of the Victorian teams, we are the only ones not to miss consecutive finals series' in the past decade, and therefore have not been able to properly go through a rebuilding phase (or more likely have been unwilling to) and as such i feel our on-field status should not be as relevant to this discussion as it would seem. Every team has down patches, this is ours and it should not mean that we are to be relocated-folded etc.

Problem is membership, crowd attendances, youth support, and i agree these have been issues that have plagued the club. But what does this article actually SAY? To me it is one of 10 others like it that merely state the problem we're in, with no depth or attempt to find a solution. What else can a club do to turn around its off field stability other than what we have done this year?

We have appointed a new ceo, coach, football department head etc. all in a bid to create a team with strengths in multiple areas. We have been working with the AFL already to solve our problems, and i honestly don't think we have buried our head in the sand. Rather, with limited funds and a poor supporter base, what would take other clubs less time to turn around may take us longer.

If our list hadn't been so crippled by injury last year and we had a successful on-field season, i don't think this article would have been written at all, but the problems would still be there, just as they were largely ignored throughout our 'successful period' of 04-06.

The club must make smart, economical decisions if it is to move forward, and i think we are doing that. Caro even specifies that McNamee is focussing on strengthening our financial position, exactly what she said was our worst predicament, yet still this does not seem to be enough.

I fully agree all non-paid up members must be sent this article as it is now coming into sheer and blinding light that our great club is in desperate need for unification and support.

I think our club is in trouble, but nothing it hasn't faced in the past decade, i think we are going to get through it but it may take steps not all agree with, but if they serve to shore up our financial future and hence give us a springboard into becomming a powerful club again then i am all for it.

Carn the dees!

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

They arent out of trouble, but when they can point to 32k members they arent "in the gun" so to speak.

Because the perception is they have support, in an environment of expansion perception is everything - the AFL need playing lists for their new clubs, they don't care where they get them from, being on the bottom of the victorian club "membership ladder" meant we were always going to be targetted this year, despite the fact we receive way less "charity" from the AFL then either the dogs or the roos.

The AFL's attack dogs (Wilson, Smith, KB, Gerard Healy, etc) will be kicking us when we are down all year trying to convince us that its inevitable we will be unviable. if the roos can stand up to them i hope we can too.

How sustainable is it when they get 23k to a home game when they are a well performed side and were a monty to win. Its a smoke screen that is challenged by the facts. They have about 10,000 new "members". Will they be there next year? Anyone noticed the drop off in WB's numbers after their ra-ra campaign the previous year. And the WB are near the top of the ladder.

Look beyond the current and look at long term sustainability. MFC, NMFC and WBFC are all still in the gun. WB possibly slightly in front due to the demographic and region it covers.

If we move to 18 clubs it wont be long term sustainable to have 10 of the Clubs in Melbourne. Its a struggle with 16 clubs.

[Hards 2]

Of North's 32k members approx 2-2.5k are non-North supporting. There's also around 2k who haven't signed up from 2007.

The numbers are solid.

Make no mistake, we are the most in the gun of any club in the competition.

[mo64 5,208]

For one of the few times I fully agree with Rhino's take. And people need to understand the nature of our club. Like the Kangaroos and the Bulldogs, we don't have a significant untapped supporter base. Our supporter/membership ratio is high. And without a mass supporter base, we will always struggle for corporate support.

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.

I find it ludicrous that so many posters on this site believe that Bailey should rebuild the playing list. As a club, we haven't got the time.

[Hannabal 4]

Of North's 32k members approx 2-2.5k are non-North supporting. There's also around 2k who haven't signed up from 2007.

The numbers are solid.

Make no mistake, we are the most in the gun of any club in the competition.

They're in just as much trouble. Their litmus test will be next year.

[Hannabal 4]

As a club, we haven't got the time.

As a list, we haven't got a choice.

[Gouga 496]

Ok here are my constructive ideas.

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

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.

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"

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

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).

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

For one of the few times I fully agree with Rhino's take. And people need to understand the nature of our club. Like the Kangaroos and the Bulldogs, we don't have a significant untapped supporter base. Our supporter/membership ratio is high. And without a mass supporter base, we will always struggle for corporate support.

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.

I find it ludicrous that so many posters on this site believe that Bailey should rebuild the playing list. As a club, we haven't got the time.

Firstly, if you are agreeing with me then I withdraw my position completely.

Seriously, I think the rebuild was going to happen anyway given where our list is. Given that many of our senior list are in their twilight and barely competitive only highlights it.

I think if we are going to be successful then we must win a flag (Hopefully soon) as part of that succcess. 44 years is a growing monkey on the club's back. Given the financial disparity between many Vic clubs and interstate clubs the ability for Victorian clubs to win a flag is becoming more and more remote. We need to work hard against the odds.

We have made the finals for the past 3 years up to 2006 and we have made the finals more often than many other Vic sides for a long period but it has not made any dent on membership or sponsorship.

I just dont think you can effectively band aid your list continually and expect to be successful. And if Bailey was to take a middle of the road approach then he is contributor to a culture which is spongy enough.

Most of the posters that are backing Bailey to make the side competitive and successful longer term and realise as a legacy of the past administration he has a questionable hand of cards to do that with and he will rightly make changes to get us there. The changes to the list are a consequence of this.

[Dreamin' Demon 10]

Hawthorn play 4 home games in Tasmania for $3,000,000 per year. They have since built a team of young kids that will see success. If we need to relocate home games for the sake of financial stabilty, so be it. I'd prefer it to income losses at a lowly attended MCG.

[Rhino Richards 1,467]

As a list, we haven't got a choice.

They're in just as much trouble. Their litmus test will be next year.

Correct on both accounts H.

[the fork 357]

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.

I find it ludicrous that so many posters on this site believe that Bailey should rebuild the playing list. As a club, we haven't got the time.

What we don't have time for is another typical thrown together list that will make the finals one year and then collapse.

This process is what we're very good at and it has been instrumental in providing our current predicament. Inconsistent success = Inconsistent membership and support.

mo64, your assuming then that our current list has the correct ingredients for finals footy. Too often our players and coaching staff have suffered through poor off-field management, you are now saying that not only should this continue but it should dictate our on field approach. Your saying cut our losses, don't go for top spot, eighth will do. That to me mate is ludicrous.

Only through long term success, and genuine (premiership) success will we get genuine, long time support.

No More Quick Fixes!!

[Rogue 585]

H & co. are right re: our list - whoever suggests we need to apply some band-aid 'fixes' to our list for some short-term and ultimately unfulfilling success are kidding themselves, IMO.

No-one has picked up on the fact that Gardner, in the same article, has suggested that it may be that we play 5 games at Carrara from next year.

Yes they have. I mentioned it in my post - around the fourth or so reply to this thread - and another two posters mentioned it before you joined the thread.

[the fork 357]

Well said Rhino, no more band-aids, we can't back out of what is needed. Our inability to go through a genuine rebuild is what has starved us of being a genuine force in this game. It's false pride or bravado that has limited our ability to follow through in the past and if anything I think the fact that we are really on the brink that will see us come through a much stronger club.

[mo64 5,208]

What we don't have time for is another typical thrown together list that will make the finals one year and then collapse.

This process is what we're very good at and it has been instrumental in providing our current predicament. Inconsistent success = Inconsistent membership and support.

mo64, your assuming then that our current list has the correct ingredients for finals footy. Too often our players and coaching staff have suffered through poor off-field management, you are now saying that not only should this continue but it should dictate our on field approach. Your saying cut our losses, don't go for top spot, eighth will do. That to me mate is ludicrous.

Only through long term success, and genuine (premiership) success will we get genuine, long time support.No More Quick Fixes!!

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.

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?

[The Emblem 1]

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?

I hear what your saying MO64 but I think the key difference is that the [censored] had the players but not the plan.

By contrast our list has big holes in it.

[drdrake 3,035]

Do know what a big problem is everyone thinks the AFL must have a team named Melbourne. We are quick to blame to board, the administration, the football department but the end of the day our supporter base is small and fickle. We can't be critical of our MCC supporters they usually turn up for games, IMO the club has gone for the easy option chasing members by turning to the MCC MFC supporters. We need to target a larger membership base outside the MCC members. Of our 24,000+ members how many are the MCC paying $40.00 memberships. I believe it is not about membership numbers but the revenue generated by Memberships.

Funny we talk about branding, we have a chairman thats has made huge dollars from advertising and market branding but we continue to struggle for identity. I'm all for the Casey idea, I would prefer it in Werribee as I believe this is a bigger growth coridor than the East but they have no facility like the one at Casey. It would also make sense to base ourselves there full time and forget about the big rental costs we will have to pay at the new stadium look to upgrading the stadium to 20,000 and play all interstate home matches out there. I'd rather do that then sell interstate but in the short term we should look to selling more games. It is stupid we play Sydney in Canberra they have a larger Melb supporter base then Fremantle and port it makes more sense to play them.

On the AFL, they know we are in trouble however the fixturing doesn't help us. The draw makes the richer clubs richer and poorer poor. When was the last time we ave played all of Collingwood, Essendon, Richmond, Hawthorn, Carlton, Geelong, St Kilda as home Victorian games, every year we get home games against Fremantle, Port, Bulldogs, North, replace them with the bigger drawing clubs and we would average 45,000 a game as well.

We have a few big years ahead are bottoming out both on and off the field, but when we get our house in order we must win a flag.