Rhino Richards

Based on the past 5 years to get Top 4 you need at least 14W & 8L & good% or 15W 7L to be sure. You drop 3 interstate games you can realistically only drop a further 4 maybe 5 over the rest of the season. A big ask. Its going to be a big effort to replicate our MCG form of 2006. I think we need to win at least 4 out of 6 interstate games to be genuine. I highlighted your metric on ND. I dont think that his re signing will come down to that. Its too late. The Board need to have clearly agreed outcomes that will taken into account now and the first half of next season. Ladder position alone is pivotal but sometimes harsh measuring tool. If we finished 6th, where our season had been clearly fractured by injuries and that the younger brigade were clearly stepping forward, do you tell ND to walk? Is the Board confident that there is a better coach out there? Do you want to take that gamble at such a crucial time with the list? When he was last appointed the Board were convinced that ND could take them the next step? Do they still feel that way now? What has changed? If the Board still believe that should they not end speculation now? The more I think about it the more I am convinced the Board has set metrics that go beyond ladder position at any point of the year. I am also sure that the Board and ND have agreed and understood these parameters.

Its amazing what does affect young men in their 20's. Footballers may be paid professionals but they are no different to the general cross section of society. Unfortunately they do not perform at the flick of a switch. That's ulitimately what separates the good coaches/leaders from the chaff. The ability to encourage players to take mental control of the situation and to play to the extent of their abilities. AFL clubs are subject to ruthless media scrutiny. Unfortunately off field matters are played out/exaggerated in the media and they become just ome more distraction that potentially gets into the head of a 20 something male. Not only footballers are professional, all key operational and footy dept positions are likewise professional. When one part drags the chain it drags the rest of the outfit with it. Carlton being just one example.

Fitzroy has always had a history of battling the odds. Unfortunately post WWII the odds became increasingly greater.

Agree. Success on the road is one of the pre requisites to a top 4 spot.

I think end of season position is complicated by the uncertainty and the prospect that ND could be poched by another Club. My view if the Board honestly believe that ND is the best man to lead the MFC with this batch of young players they should seek to extend his contract in accordance with their pre arranged metrics and objectives. They will look thoroughly stupidd if they believe he is the one and wait too long to re sign him and other Clubs swoop. The MFC Board are smart enough to realise that. Also while many we say he has had 10 years, the issue is not where we have been but where we are at the moment where believe we are going and is ND the best person to do this. While we might not be as public on the intraclub matches, I am hearingfrequent media reoprts especially on SEN by ex AFL players that they have been impressed by the way MFC have trained. It may be hype though.

Based on his current contract this is ND's last year. He has been developing this side over the last 4 years since he took the brave step after 2002 finals that we were not going to achieve success with the shortcomings within the 2002 finals team. Well, this is the year he has to roll the dice and to get those younger players with potential like McLean, Sylvia, Bate, Rivers etc to really produce and hopefully supported by more experienced players. This is ND's shot and I think he will want to make it a good one. Its an interesting question as to what ND's future will be with MFC beyond this year and when it will be decided by both parties. If MFC has a stinker of a year in 2007 (say like the Cats) then this will be his last year. If MFC are running top 8 and possibly top 4 this year, do you re sign ND for a further term? If so, how long? And when do you do it (during the year, end of the year.)? If they are not going to appoint ND, at what point should that be determined and what process (private or public) will be enacted to seek a replacement? The Board needs to have clear metrics and objectives in addressing this matter. If the Board were to re appoint ND for a further term then it must be done on a basis that reflects the Board's confidence in ND. On that basis saying "We'll give him one more year and will do it at the end of year" is definitive statement of a lack of confidence in ND and the Board should look elsewhere. It also compromises our interests by creating uncertainty for ND, the Club and supporters and is doomed strategy. I hope that pre emptive and sensible behind door conversations between MFC and ND have taken place and the options and performance metrics in this arrangement have been clearly defined and agreed.

My comment was to Dappa in regard to St Kilda. At least half the comp was financial struggling or tenuously so in age just prior to full time professionalism. With the exception of possibly Essendon and Hawthorn, club's management were often crude, incompetent and financially unsophisticated (rather like Carlton today ). I am not sure that "History is bunk" is relevant as there are always lessons to be learnt. History also shows how few people have learnt them.

The issues that create the poor on field performance bring about the instability. You are focussing on an outcome and using it be a blanket cause of what creates the instability. Its a good excuse for a low level Herald Sun write up but it is a simple mask for the real matters that fester away and cause the instability.

Spot on Old. That's Travis. I was thinking that Steve Harmison in the field moves with the agility of Nick Smith.

Like Chris Judd.....

Poor form on the field is a consequence or an end result of potentially a myriad of issues including instability at Board Level. You have to ask why poor on field performance occurs? Poor on field performance is an outcome not a cause.

Thanks Jaded. With due respect to the memory of Troy Broadbridge, its high time that his number taken out of mothballs. Apt comments by Trisha too. Good luck to the new players and I hope they all do their numbers proud.

Poor form on the field is a consequence or an end result of potentially a myriad of issues including instability at Board Level. There is no doubt in the world that Board instability will seep down through the ranks into the playing group. It permeates every decision making role in the organisation.

Its already affecting them and has so for the past two years. Its left its imprint throughout the whole club.

I did not realise there was another Ryan Ferguson at the Club. I have only seen one of them at training or in games. Both appear courgaeous but seem completely different players from then on with few similarities. For both players, bulking up is high unlikely and is not this player's panacea. For the one I do know he will be depth in 2007. And when called up I hope he fulfils his functions.

People need to get over this fixation with height. Being a ruckman in AFL is more than just the centre bounce. Height is only one requirement. Mobility, football brains and skill are critical to play the additional midfielder as well as centre bounce. There are very few big good ruckman out there over 200cm. Unless someone can stack their bowls of morning weet bix, most of the current crop of giants just dont cut the mustard. Hell, if I was that fixated just with height then Peter Street would be the top of our shopping list. Our situation is not dire but we do need to be more competitive to at least nuillify the impact of the one or two good ruckman out there and beat the rest. If you want dire have a look at Carlton's rucks. Wow Jones should have been drafted.

See you there Dave. I agree with your sentiments.

An interesting thought PGS I always have a suspicion at immediately applying measures in the Australia that work in a large populous market like the US where the sports involved dominate their respective markets and respective seasons. Unfortunately Australian rules operates in a geographically segmented market with a low overall population where AFL is subject to heavy competition from other forms of sport. At moment 16 clubs playing 8 games a week provides TV content. While the lucrative TV rights contract stipulates that AFL provides 16 teams/8 games a week then my comments stand. If you really want to explore unfair you may wish to examine UK premier league soccer where Man Utd and Chelsea have a multiple of the dollars other clubs have to attract players. In addition you may wish to consider US Baseball where the NY Mets player salaries are up to eight times those of other poorer clubs. Competition legacy, geography and demographics in this country will always thwart the level playing field utopia .

Dappa, St Kilda were insolvent 20 years ago as an entity period without AFL support. I just think that there is a fair downside for St Kilda's future if they get the running of their Club wrong this time and they have nearly 100 years of defeatist culture there to suggest they dont have many rolls of the dice. Richmond could be one of the marquee clubs of the AFL with a professional well run outfit on and off the field creating a membership of 45 to 50k. But FWIW, the Tigers ability over the last 30 years to eat their own to their own detriment ensures I cannot be confident that they will maxmise their position. My comments on other Club's future in no way embellishs the cloudy prospects for our own Club. FWIW we still have a large mountain to climb. We are at base camp but at least we know what it is we have to do. We are as vulnerable as any under suspicion. The Carlton example only highlights how a successful and powerful club can get it wrong so badly.....and so quickly. It highlights how important a cohesive competent and professional Board of Directors is supported by capable and experienced management

My understanding is that finances at Hawthorn are stable but not fantastic. I think there are strategic concerns about the ability of Hawks to expand the reach and value of their franchise. In the past few years, their onfield performance being poor to mediocre has stalled their membership. I have my doubts whether they are seen as a marquee club of the future and there the uncertainty lies. This issue is more than just current financial position but you are right to point out there are a number of clubs with dodgy financial positions and there future is not sound. The Tassie experiment is seen as a way of increasing the reach of the franchise.

Would you rate Malthouse and Pagan as good coaches given they have won flags but have been lacklustre at their current clubs?

Carlton, if run properly (and I mean if) would be one of the marquee Victorian clubs and at the risk of alienating the potential 40,000 members that this Club could pull if half competently run and capably performing on field I dont see the AFL doing it to them. I can see the AFL taking greater hands on control of Carlton going forward However it would suit the AFL if such talk was allowed to proliferate so as to soften the electorate for the merger/relocation of at least two to three Melb clubs. Mergers will not occur until the AFL has a bona fide side to fill the void to meet the 16 clubs needed for TV rights. FWIW, if the Kangas are not based in the Gold Coast within 3 years they are doomed. They cannot survive at the current rate. IMO, the other Clubs in trouble are Hawthorn (give them 3 to 5 years) and Bulldogs (give them 3 to 5 years). Melbourne is iffy and may only survive as a franchise using the name unless we can turn it around on and off the field. Only one will survive out of Richmond and St Kilda. Ultimately the AFL will look something like this in 5 years.... 2 WA, 2 SA, 2 Qld, 2 NSW, 1 Tas (Goodbye Hawks), 7 Vic sides. I would not be surprised if this is whittled down to six with another Club for NSW/QLD The Victorian sides to survive: Essendon, Collingwood, Carlton (Post AFL administration), Geelong (merged with Bullies), Richmond/ Saints (Cant split them), Melbourne( at best on its own otherwise a franchise)

A stellar effort markc (and Ash!) A excellent dvd of the best footballer I have ever seen in the red and blue. I trust things are going well for you after you closed your business last year

Unfortunately it does. It corrodes every aspect of the Club's operations. A functional united Board is critical to the on and off field success of a Club.

While we often laud North's success on Carey (and he was good) you do not win GFs on one man alone. North had a terrific band of unsung heroes that stepped up and were as capable as any.