jmac

56 minutes ago, Earl Hood said:

Different grounds. Victory is training where we used to train and the surface looks great, big open field. Goschs is a different shaped ground and where tje Pies used to train. If the surface is deteriorating we need to be on top of it before we loose someone to a training accident, a la the Ox circa 1995 pre season slipping on a sprinkler. 

Here's the point, seeing as it seems to have passed you by: do you think the quality of the surface at Gosch's a) has absolutely anything to do with our abysmal performance yesterday, or b) has gone unnoticed by the professional footballers, coaches and staff at MFC who are literally there for many hours several times a week?

57 minutes ago, Hell Bent said:

Agree he is out of form but he was nowhere near our worst yesterday, you are kidding yourself if you think Hogan, Watts n Brayshaw were better.

The whole argument that "he's not as bad as so-and-so" is bunk when he is consistently average or worse every week.

Hogan and Watts won it for us last week, and provided spark at the beginning of the 4th yesterday. Brayshaw is a kid coming back from injury (too early, by the sounds) and given that, at least he tried his arse off. Also realise that you are pointing the finger at two players in their second season ahead of Tyson. That is insane.

Trying is not good enough from Tyson. If he's out of form, like you say, and we (apparently) have some kind of depth now, why play him?

38 minutes ago, binman said:

I had the same thought. Surely two trolls could not be so banal. He (i assume a he, because i'll bet london to a brick its' a bloke) should do some troll training before going public. Perhaps tease his little sister or back chat his dad. Then maybe make an off Broadway debut in the comments section of an innocuous hun article. 

lol

OK m8s.

Dom was woefully bad yesterday, and not much better the week before. He got a few touches, sure, but were they effective? He hasn't had a significant impact on a game since his first season with us. He gets a free pass because he speaks well -- but he shouldn't be talking to the media about next week when he's had a stinker. It's like fingernails down a chalkboard to me. 

Here's a list of players who were better than Tyson yesterday, in no particular order:

Lumumba, Pedersen, Kennedy, Vince, Jetta, Salem, Oliver, Brayshaw, Jones x2, Hogan, Garlett, Bugg, Viney, Watts

(FWIW in my view our worst were McDonald, Gawn, Garland, Kent, vandenBerg, Tyson)

For what we paid for him, he should be in our top 10. He's in his fifth season, his third with us, and his stats are going backwards.  

He is 100% deserving of a critical eye in my book. At the moment he's a passenger.

2 minutes ago, givemethecure said:

Mate he is bloody a good guy and you want him in a bin honestly 

just vote "correct" if u agree

Just now, Peter Griffen said:

Did he run over your dog? i reckon there are about 30 blokes on our list that are more of a worry than Dom

you reckon he's best 22? i reckon he's worst 22 imho

2 minutes ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Why does Dom Tyson have to get in a rubbish bin?

Have i missed something..

doesn't have to be a rubbish bin, could be a green waist bin or recycling or wheelie bin

1 minute ago, givemethecure said:

You know what's discusstion is that blokes like you jump on a bloke when he's the only one whom is trying all day not like you what have you done

I am merely saying that Tom Dyson is terribly at footballing and could football himself out of a paper bag

Discuss.

9 minutes ago, givemethecure said:

What are they not telling us about Gosh's imho!!

get a grip

if its good enough for Melbourne Victories its good enough for us

someone must've pulled it...........privacy reasons?

Yup, sorry.

There's no reason why we can't have a range of logo options for different scenarios. Lots of companies and organisations do this.

The problem with the new shield is that it's trying to be everything to everyone, and it ends up just being a dog's breakfast. My hope is that the Demons brand will be presented to supporters in a way that we can all feel proud to be associated with it. Basically want us to be the NY Yankees cap of the AFL. Is that too much to ask?

A competition (with prize) for a (new) demon logo might be a good idea

This is the one thing that I hope we never, ever resort to. This is where you end up with competition-based design/branding:

A lot of merchandising comes through the AFL so Melbourne won't necessarily have much control over it as it is the same for all teams.

True, but if we don't put pressure on MFC, how are they going to put pressure on the suppliers? Their only incentive to do so is if a) everyone stops buying (won't happen, enough people will buy anything to justify the crap) or b) enough people have a right whinge about it. I think the latter is more likely to end in a positive outcome.

thought we had a whiz-bang art director / advertising exec type on the board

Russel Howcroft? Yeah, would be interesting to hear his thoughts on all this. Haven't heard him speak enough about it really.

There's plenty of posters on 'Land who have knowledge of graphic design, I'm a freelance designer myself, who have bagged out the logo for the exact same reasons and posted here A LOT about it. However, if "jmac" was to research further he'd find that the MFC merchandise is almost exactly the same as every other club as it's all licensed, designed, and made by the same company for every team in the AFL. So while I agree about the logo, it's silly to single out MFC for their merchandise when the entire league has the same stuff. The club itself KNOWS how ugly some of the gear is, but not only do they have no control over most of it, but the uglier stuff sells more! Some if it is truly horrible tho.

Case in point, these horrible "superman" tshirts....

Ugh the Superman shirts. Terrible.

Thanks for posting this up Chook.

Stuie: I got a response from MFC first thing this morning -- very impressed with how quickly they replied. They mentioned the tricky position they're in with AFL-mandated suppliers, which I totally understand. Quality in terms of how merch is made, and what it is made of, and to some degree what it looks like is totally out of the Club's hands, in that respect. Can't blame the club for things mandated by the AFL.

And yeah, ugly stuff sells, there's no doubt. It doesn't sell because it's ugly though, it sells because it exists. The examples I pointed out are easily fixed into things that anyone would wear, not just people who don't/can't discern between 1858 and 1958 or that their vintage knockoff says VINTAGE on it (seriously, wtf). I'd wear that beanie if it didn't scream "I am a massive idiot".

My point is that it's up to the club to take a lead. Freo have, and it's working for them. Their stuff is consistent (albeit purple) and bold. That's all I want from our merch, to be strong and purposeful and consistent. And true to our heritage, because that's all we have to trade on right now.

And of course I also want the logo to die a firey death. It is abhorrent, and is representative of one of the worst periods in the club's history. It's a basket-case, and the club should recognise that. They wrote back with some pretty interesting stuff about the logo survey, might post it later.