mo64

Whilst I agree that Garland's performances this year have been mediocre, he like many others are not playing on instinct, but seem to have too many thoughts going through their head. It worries me when after a game, players come out and say that we didn't follow the coach's instructions. It suggests that the "team rules" are too complex. If Garland was allowed to play instinctively in his rightful position up forward, I think he has got a future at AFL level.

We'll agree to disagree that spin-doctoring is in the best interests of the club. As for your rebuilding claim, we had the perfect opportunity to trade Robertson prior to the draft. Why wouldn't it start then rather than 2 games into the season?

Totally agree Scoop. Didn't Bailey get the gig over Hardwick because he believed that we didn't need to rebuild? And Pipefitter, if the policy of the club is to keep everyone in the dark about our "obvious rebuiding", then members and sponsors will stay away in droves, and the media will rightfully come down us like a ton of bricks. With our relatively injury free list, we should be competitive every week. And the basics of football should apply regardless of whether Bailey is implementing a new gameplan.

Does Frawley fall into this category?

The Ins and Outs haven't changed the composition of the side, or the inherent problems. Our backline lacks creativity and a genuine shutdown player. Johnson and Welsh will have a field day. And whilst we have a forwardline that contains Neitz, Robertson, Newton/Miller, the opposition will create havoc on the rebound. Our perceived lack of midfield pace is compounded by our structural problems in defence and forward lines.

First and foremost, I am a member. But I don't get irate with people who are not members. What has the club done both off-field and on-field to warrant new members signing up? Off-field - Where has the marketing been for our 150th year anniversary? Where has the promotion been of our new coach and new football department? On-field - How did the membership and corporate sales department feel about us tanking the NAB Cup game? And how did they feel about our abysmal form in the preseason games? The same posters that bemoan our poor membership and attendances, are the same ones who state that NAB Cup preseason games mean nothing. These games mean EVERYTHING to a club like Melbourne.

Maybe our tall forwards such as Neitz, Robertson and Newton lack the mobility to veer a metre either way, to accept an errant pass. We need forwards that will apply defensive pressure and have agility. Dunn, Bate and Sylvia need to be given time in the forward line. Yze and Robertson to Sandy. Davey Bate Dunn Green Neitz Sylvia

"Young side with a couple of players missing". Are we talking about Hawthorn or Melbourne. No excuse. Who's to say that the new game plan will actually work. Including the preseason games, we've played 2 quarters of competitive football. Maybe Bailey should get the players to focus on the basics of football, rather than clouding their simple minds with a convoluted game plan.

If we line up like that, we're in a bad way. There's no run or creativity in our backline, let alone any lockdown players. As for our forwardline, I would have loved to see a forwardline of Yze Neitz Robertson, but that was 3 years ago.

timD, you've obviously redirected your rants on this topic away from Demonology, where your arguments were contested by all and sundry. You probably thought you'd get a more sympathetic ear on Demonland. Not from me pal.

I'm glad you found your post enjoyable. How can anything be factually informed if you don't know the full facts?

TimD, the title of this thread is a misleading. "Funding" to all 16 AFL clubs was an equal $4.913m. Until you know on what basis the "other payments" is apportioned, your arguments are purely emotive. The bottom line is that our $ contribution to the AFL, whether it be from TV rights or merchandising, would be amongst the bottom 3 clubs in the competition. That's reality, not fantasy land.

By round 6, when we're 0-5, we should have a full list to choose from. Round 11 is when we start tanking.

No, you appoint an interim one, like Collingwood did when Swann jumped ship.

Well said. Some posters seem to believe that just because you have a media profile, you haven't got anything worthwhile to contribute. By having a profile, they are able to open doors that faceless board members are unable to do. And I'm not having a go at the current board members.

How many companies would retain a failed CEO in an interim role?

I'd rather deal in facts than rhetoric. The facts are that whilst we've had a 'lame duck' CEO in charge for the past 3 months, our membership figures are the worst in the AFL by any measures.

Business isn't about "sh!t happens". For the past 3 months, in what is supposed to be a year of celebration and renewed enthusiasm, we've had a lame duck CEO, whilst searching for a new one. Where has our marketing and promotions been? The result of this has meant that our % of memberships compared to last season is the worst in the AFL. A poor on-field start to the season and our finance projections are up the "sh!t" again. If "sh!t" does happen in business, then those responsible need to be held accountable. Not applauded.

How can you applaud and give credit to the removal of a CEO who was reappointed 12 months prior?

Love your work Grand Old Fox. Garry Lyon is just exposing the malaise, which is the Melbourne Football Club. What was gained last year by lying about our true profit projections? Be honest with your members and supporters, and they will rally to the cause. Let's hope that Paul McNamee can change this mentality of secrecy, because Paul Gardner hasn't.

Before you draw your own conclusions RR, I suggest you research how the non-base funding is derived. Whether the funding is for capital works or is football related revenue, is the big issue. If the amount received by a club is primarily for capital works, which I believe is the case in the Bulldogs, Kangaroos and Carlton, then it's not an ongoing revenue stream, and the club's ongoing sustainability is questionable. If the amounts received are for the apportionment of gate receipts from walk-ups, or nominating your club with your AFL membership, they would be add to your bottom line revenue. Without going through every club, these are the conclusions that I would draw from the figures: The interstate clubs would have the highest % of membership-to-attendance figures and very few AFL members, hence their apportionment of gate receipts and AFL memberships would be low. Conversely, a club like Collingwood would have a high % of walk-ups and massive gate receipts, as well as a substantial amount from AFL memberships. Essendon would have a low % of walk-ups to their TD home games, but would receive significant amounts from walk-ups at MCG games, as well as a substantial amount from AFL memberships. The bottom line is, from a pure revenue perspective, clubs such as WB, Kangaroos and Melbourne are far more dependent on AFL funding, than all other clubs.

We may as well draft Craig Mottram, because he's got as much chance of playing like a Pav or Reiwoldt, as Meesen. Bate or Dunn as mobile CHF's, possibly. Meesen, never.

And Woosha continued feeding on the carcass. It was brilliant!

If the money is going to the club, whether it be for facilities or in cash, how can it be irrelevant to our needs?

We're a club that relies on welfare, so the funding is warranted.