mo64

The only sponsor that i've supported has been the Age, and that's because I was already an Age reader, and the deal they're offering members is too good to pass up. Companies are smart enough to realise that the take-up rate of whatever product they have to offer, will only be a small percentage of our membership. And as others have pointed out, it reeks of desperation.

Pretty good comparisons HT, but I disagree on a couple. I'd include Pavlich in the elite category. He's a victim of playing in the most maligned team in the comp. And if your champions list are meant to be just short of elite status, I'd exclude Archer. A good player who made the most of his ability.

Reported on Demonology that Jamar was wearing a moon boot. Our ruck stocks being as thin as they are can ill afford either Jamar or PJ to be missing games.

Not at all. As I said previously, Schwab has got an unenviable task. It's patently obvious that unless we have on-field success, regardless of the CEO or president in office, we will struggle with balancing the books. MacNamee could obviously see that, hence his desire to get Brown. I've said all along, in our current financial position, I don't agree with the Board and Football Dept.'s direction of looking at short term pain for long term success. Clubs like the Bulldogs, Kangaroos and ourselves can't afford to bottom out. We should be adopting the Swans or Crows model, which is to be competitive every year. And if that means drafting or trading for mature aged players, so be it.

Maybe PM was singing the right tune after all. He understood the urgency of the situation we were in. Just as an aside, I was critical of Stynes at the time for coming out and saying that it was unlikely that we would make the finals this season. We then can't bemoan the fact that we aren't given Friday night coverage. Comments like this could also be thrown back in the face of those who are doing a sales pitch to potential sponsors.

I don't know whether McNamee was good CEO or not, but he obviously identified that the club lacked marketability, and the acquisition of a genuine superstar like Jono Brown surely helps the club's profile. Ok, he should have consulted the football dept. prior to making any approach, but his intentions were correct in my opinion, and far from absurd.

For starters, what on-field influence does an ageing captain like Burns, Kane Johnson and now McDonald have on a team, when they probably spend 70% of the time on the field? I didn't realise that captains made positional moves? As I said, captains have no more of a bearing on a teams on-field performance as the next bloke. As for Junior being a poor media performer, how often have you heard or seen him being interviewed? I've actually heard Jack Watts being interviewed more often than Junior. And where the f#ck is the inference that Junior is not respected? And you showed what a nob you are by picking up grammar mistakes.

As I raised previously, what selling points do the current administration have to a potential major sponsor?

An integral part of the captaincy is facing the media, and Tom Harley is a classic case in point. He's less of an on-field leader than Scarlett or Ablett, but is respected and extremely well spoken. Junior is a poor media performer who won't have the time to grow into the job. On-field captaincy involves little more than tossing the coin, because nowadays, all players are expected to lead by example, not just the captain.

I agree with Deeman. Now is the time to keep the members informed of the true situation of the club. If an annual Debt Demolition is required to keep the club afloat, count me out.

Wrong, my preference for the captaincy is Brock McLean, but I could understand it if they gave Green or Bruce the captaincy, as both have at least 3 years of competitive football in them, and have done far more media than McDonald. In the position we are in, we need good media performers at the helm to sell the club. And neither Bailey or McDonald are good media performers. And tell me what are the selling points of the current MFC? I'll say this for you Rhino, you are at least consistent with your arguments. You never criticise those who are currently in office, but once they've left, you apportion the blame to them.

To the outside world, we are an uninspiring club, hence the reasons why we can't attract players from other clubs nor a major sponsor. What exactly are our selling points? And we continued our trend of blandness by appointing Junior as captain. No offence to Junior, but the media are hardly going to bang down our doors down asking for requests to do interviews with him. And if the club hasn't worked it out yet, sponsorship is all about media exposure. I feel for Cameron Schwab. Luring a major sponsor will be Mission Impossible. (Pun intended).......

The club email I received inferred that the players' vote was the determining factor in the selection of the captain and VC. Last season it was clearly stated by the club that the leadership group was selected by the players' vote, and ratified by the football department. Unless stated there is any evidence to the contrary, the same process was adopted this season. It's my belief that experienced people within the football department are more qualified to assess leadership qualities than a young playing list.

If "they" refers to the football dept., by allowing the players to vote on the leadership candidates, "they" may not get their preferred successor to Junior.

If that's the case, the football department got it wrong. I wouldn't have had a problem with Bruce or Green being made captain, if they wanted Mclean to concentrate on getting onto the park. But I can't see Junior getting as much game time as he has in previous years. It's a short term appointment that makes no sense.

No problems with the administration. It's the football department that I've got my doubts about......

My sentiments exactly. They used the same player voting system as last season. As much as we admire Junior, the appointment makes no sense on so many levels. For starters, I'd hope that Junior's playing time would diminish this year, and the younger mids would take on a greater role. Secondly, once Junior relinquishes the captaincy, does Bruce takeover the helm? If so, Bruce will be close to 30. Why not groom a younger player like McLean, and give him the VC. And finally, Junior is not a great media performer which is a prerequisite of an AFL captain these days. The player voting system got it wrong last season, and they got it wrong this year.

7. Training on a ground with goal posts at either end.

McNamara. I believe that he's a similar type of player to Rivers. Wheatley excluded, I agree with your ratings.

Our game plan is supposedly based on running and quick movement of the ball. Your backline consists of 5 players who I'd regard as key position. Personally, I'd have Garland at FB, Rivers in the BP, and Martin at CHB. But I doubt that Rivers will play in the NAB cup.

Required players don't get thrown up as trade bait and offered 1 year deals.

Ok, I'm not fussed that CJ has gone. He was a fringe player, and I'm hopeful that we'll get a better model of running half back with Grimes or Strauss. And I'm glad that we didn't sign him to a 2 year deal. Firstly, belittling a person in front of his peers is poor management on any level. And I can't see how it improves Bailey's standing amongst the players, and does nothing for the so called "culture" of the club. Secondly, Liam Pickering has a huge stable of clients. If we were to target one of his players down the track, do you think that he'd speak in glowing terms of the current MFC football department, when one of his clients was publicly humiliated? Thirdly, why did we offer a fringe player a subsequent 2 year deal? Once Carlton offered him a 2 year deal, we should have just let him go with good wishes.

Here's the article you were referring to. If you don't understand the meaning of the word "sympathetic", go buy yourself a dictionary. http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/news/dean...6319006988.html "The one-way conversation ended soon afterwards and it was not pretty. Colin Sylvia, who reportedly crossed paths with Johnson as he traipsed off the oval, regarded him with some sympathy and advised him to leave." I found the fact that Bailey subsequently offered CJ a 2 year deal even more bemusing.

What a load of crap. You dare to criticize Ron Burgandy's logic, when the basis of your arguments are factually incorrect. Point 1. He didn't walk out on the club. He was put on the trade table by the club. What message does that send to a fringe player? No acceptable trade was forthcoming. Another club offers him a better contract. Of course he's going to accept it. Point 2. Yes you are wrong. No players gave him a send-off in the day in question. In fact, Sylvia sympathetically suggested that he should leave the field. I agree with Hards and Ron, the situation was handled poorly, and reflects badly on the club. I wish CJ all the best, and hope he has a prolonged career.

Klinger has played half a season of decent cricket, and you want him in the test team? Players like Rogers, David Hussey and Hodge have dominated at state and county level for years, and deserve a place ahead of Klinger. In my opinion, Klinger's not up to test standard. Stonewalling against state attacks is not the credentials of a test player. Katich was recalled to the test team because he came out of his shell, and started dominating state attacks. Since losing to the Poms in 2005, the selectors have tried to manufacture an allrounder, and have picked Symonds and Watson when form hasn't warranted selection. I get the impression that Ponting has had a big say in their selection.