Rhino Richards

Range Rover driving gloves in MFC colours would be good.

If Miller was not the first choice of DB (apparently Miller's great saviour) up forward when there does not appear to any clear stand out at this point for CHF, his position at FB may only be as a consequence of Carroll's fall from grace. Miller is going to have to earn his stripes where ever he can scratch a game, leadership group or not.

I agree with Hards. There has been (and still are) problems at MFC that cannot be igonored or denied. We have lost a number of talented staff not all football related. I am not sure what you mean about "it seems as if the house has been put in order"? Despite the recent appointments of Bailey and Connolly, we have staff leaving in droves, no profit,financial impaired, poor on field position, small supporter base and no CEO two weeks before the start of our "big" 150 years celebration. I am not sure why there has been so much vitriol at journalists Smith and Wilson. Maybe crisis is not the right word but its surely a crap position to be in and seemingly the Board has equivocated for some time before making a decision on Harris that should have been made in November if not earlier.

FCS...its only February! <_<

.......because in early February every footballer looks soooo good. Its hard from scratch matches and training for outside observers to really identify who is going to step up to AFL pressure. Nevertheless it is good that every player is putting his best efforts. Thats a positive. And also players previously under an injury cloud being able to participate in the pre season process.

No it does not show that. Given the difficulty you talk about its why midfielders who are able to perform more consistently over 22 rounds get selected and big men dont get a look in. There is no evidence that judges give more recognition to a big/KPP over a smaller player. Like any player, Leuenberger has to perform....no matter how big they are.

Hardly. Here are the past rising stars: Only 4 out of 14 have been KPPs. No rucks to be seen there . (Kosi and Goodes played KPP in his first year.) 1993: Nathan Buckley (Brisbane Bears) 1994: Chris Scott (Brisbane Bears) 1995: Nick Holland (Hawthorn) 1996: Ben Cousins (West Coast Eagles) 1997: Michael Wilson (Port Adelaide) 1998: Byron Pickett (Kangaroos) 1999: Adam Goodes (Sydney Swans) 2000: Paul Hasleby (Fremantle) 2001: Justin Koschitzke (St Kilda) 2002: Nick Riewoldt (St Kilda) 2003: Sam Mitchell (Hawthorn) 2004: Jared Rivers (Melbourne) 2005: Brett Deledio (Richmond) 2006: Danyle Pearce (Port Adelaide) 2007: Joel Selwood (Geelong)

Hardly a downside when you receive the stickers in January and the red yoke had faded to soft pink or white by March! FWIW, I like the plain red yoke on the blue square. Its distinctive of MFC its more visible than some other Clubs.

As far as the fight back is concerned for the Roos it all p1$$ and wind. The figure of 19,376 would be buoyed by the media spin and a fantastic performance last year. Its a fantastic effort but hardly sustainable. Without the media focus on the future and poor season in 2006 they had only 12,000 members to the start of 2007. I reckon they will struggle to push 25,000 especially if there 2007 golden run of injuries stops and their performance goes pear shaped. 18,000 for MFC is definitely part of a crisis we are facing. Our best membership effort was sub 30,000 and that included a mix of $40 members. Hell, Richmond can still get 30k+ members and their team is repeatedly crap. Coupled with our low turnover, MFC is in one long crisis.

The MCC already make a considerable financial contribution to the MFC each year above and beyond what they give to any other club so I am not sure what is wrong with the relationship between MFC and MCC. The preference of MCC members to buy or not buy a MFC membership is a matter for the individual MCC member not the MCC. It should be remembered the MCC is a broadly based membership group and has changed significantly from the days when MFC was a part of the MCC. I have yet to see a corporate structure that works effectively beyond the corporate spin it with dual CEOs. In terms of clear responsibilities and accountabilities, I believe there should be one CEO. I hope the Club puts in place a recruitment process for the CEO role that is as rigourous as the approach taken to appoint the Coach. Despite the salary being bandied about in the Press, I do not believe the MFC role is a plum or lucrative job. I am concerned that regardless of who you have in the role there are significant barriers to development of MFC to a major powerhouse. Nevertheless I hope we do appoint a CEO who is brilliant at the role, committed to MFC and performs well for us over a long period of time.

Outside Geelong, you could have any of the 15 other sides having action in September. Notwithstanding injuries MFC could finish anywhere from 4th to 14th. Its a big year. And if the younger players do struggle and there are injuries that gives Bailey a poor scoreline I hope those that worshipped him pre season will stick with him if it gets hard. I think we have reasonable claims for the 8 this year.

I dont think the Board believes that unlike some of MFC's supporters. How do you MFC are out there seeking sponsorships like the Roos. BTW, there is alot of spin surrounding the Roos, they are along way off being self suffiicient and they are barely scraping the surface of what has to be done. I think every CEO appointment has been important for MFC for the last 13 years or so when it was realised by the Board back then how unfinancial we were. It would appear we have not got the CEO appointments right. We need to get the right choice now.

No they are already in turmoil with Wallet. B)

Good.

In the Press it was said the Roos had 12,000 just prior to the start of the 2007 season. Bit of a dead cat bounce! At what were the respective Clubs figures current as at. Regardless the MFC figures are not unreasonable relative to the others. The big issue for me is not just the bold numbers of members but also the mix of full paying as opposed to nominal paying members.

This would not be a problem if the Board had sub committees that focus on particular areas (eg Audit/Finance and Football Operations) met more often and reported to the main board on a regular basis. The use of Board and sub committees is not unusual from an efficiency and corporate governance perspective.

This is always the challenge with salary cap and list number restrictions. To plug areas of weakness in your list you often have to "sell" areas of potential oversupply. For short term periods it can leave you exposed until inexperienced players step up. Biglands injury is a blow to the Crows. However what did they trade away and what di they receive in the process? Hudson is workmanlike and Meesen is unproven. Its a chance for young players to step up. However, for ruckman under 21 I think AFL is a phyisically challenging proposition.

Completely agree. He should have gone months ago and the basis of the entension was untenable given the identified issues already at hand.

Gouga, It was the worst example of a series of incidents that has crept into Yze's game over the past five years. There have been a number of times he just wouldnt commit his body to the contested ball sacrificing any advantage he had in the challenge. The areas of application weakness that you have identified also apply to above. ND's failure to drop Yze (which I agree) does not offset Yze fundamental failure to put his head over the ball. For the record, Rivers was not fit and Bizzell's form was so hopeless leading into the 2005 final that Heffernan was chosen ahead of him and neither represented a straight replacement. With Neitz out, Yze was partially there to provide "leadership". So much for that. If we had a fitter squad to choose from Yze would have been out.

Correct. I dont think this has been a spur of the moment decision by the Club No they were both disappointments to varying degrees. We need to get a better CEO. Yes it did. Many were recruited by Harris and were paid out of their contracts before time. There have been a number of other key people that have left frustrated with certain things at MFC. Its been the Club's loss. Unfortunately its not an assumption Gouga.

The example goLLy is referring to was a pretty embarrassing example of a player spooked by physical contact. The truth was Yze heard footsteps and moved underneath a marking opportunity when he was in fact clear. It was the worst example of behaviour that Yze has exhibited in other games. And Nasher is spot on. Unfortunately the risk referred to is genuine.

I have had the same feeling when I have gone to watch MFC play in the past few years. <_<

I doubt it undees. There is more to it than the press article.

Its 1 February today not 1 April. Its worrying that people would take the bait and welcome back such a divisive and self serving individual with a dubious corporate record (no matter how much he bank rolls the club).

How much advertising were MFC doing with The Age over the past 5 years? There is no evidence that Harris has any pull with his old emplyer or that there was any benefit to MFC. FWIW, I think rednblue is onto something...