Harry Manback

Noticed this especially today, and whilst he was one of the major culprits, sadly was not the only one. The so-called senior players of the club set an especially poor example for the young kids coming through in this regard. The likes of Green, White, Bruce and Robertson are constantly making position twenty metres ahead of the player in possession in the pockets and flanks, rather than pushing to a dangerous position further up the ground that will help advance the ball forward of the centre. The worse part is that these players are constantly rewarded for their 'positioning' by getting the cheap one over the top. It's only a matter of time before the new boys like Morton realize that if they want to get a kick, all they have to do is hover around these pockets and flanks and they'll exponentially increase their stats sheet, whilst not helping us move forward as a club one bit...

Hansel, so hot right now. Hansel.

Same here. Been an AFL member with Melbourne Club Support with my family as long as I can remember, took up an additional Concession Membership whilst at uni and have just upgraded to full Red & Blue Member now I'm no longer studying.

According to today's website it is currently at 15,385. Just received AFL membership renewels in the mail last week so expect that to increase by at least 5! Just curious, does anyone know if the players and officials purchase memberships themselves? At our local country footy club the players are required to purchase club memberships for about $25, which gives them entry to all home games. Obviously with MFC players and officials they wouldn't require them for match-day entry, but it could be a handy little revenue booster and the increase in membership numbers couldn't hurt either......

I remember watching Daniel Bell when he first came along thinking that if could improve his anticipation, he could become quite a handy defender. Had lightening closing speed to the point where he 'almost' managed to cause spoils where he was initially well out of position, but his lack of footy smarts cost him in the early stages of the contests. I doubt many would argue Bell hasn't improved significantly in this area (also, a lot less 'brain fades' when he has the pill these days), which all bodes well for a developing back with the attributes of Frawley, especially if he has already shown good anticipation as mentioned by DeeReaming. Give him another couple seasons and an extra 10-15kgs and I think we can have a very, very solid defensive player on our hands. Also agree with Rhino- whilst not pretty- his kicking has so far appeared to be reasonably effective.

Rumor has it that WCE were after Johnstone, Davey + Pick 4 in exchange for Judd. MFC backed away as was too high a price to pay, which I personally believe was a very smart move. Wouldn't suprise me at all if he ended up there, although I really do hope all the speculation is just a brilliant ploy of Bailey's to get Travis to actually care about his footy.... (or at least to appear to!!)

We should definitely be looking to acquire another top ten pick. From all reports, it sounds like Bailey was always going to trade Johnstone regardless of the Chris Judd situation. Whilst a part of me would like to see how he fares in the post-Daniher era, the reality is that the whole group aged 25+ years have had ample time to develop to the level of excellence and consistency that we have hoped- and in some cases as with Travis- expected. Daniher had three or four attempts at building 'his' list in his ten year period as coach, and unfortunately for him (and all MFC supporters) it was not good enough to take us all the way. With that in mind, Bailey should be looking to move-on the inconsistent performers from that period and develop 'his' list from the current crop of youngsters already at our disposal, and through the draft. This is the perfect chance to build a side that can be seriously competetive in 2-3 years time, ala Hawthorn's aggressive trading for picks in 2004-05. Whilst we certainly require both key forwards and defenders, we would be crazy not to go for the best availble at pick 4. If we had another top ten selection we could then look to draft on a "needs" basis, without the shadow of another Chris Lamb/ Luke Molan situation hanging over our heads.

Quote: Maguire- Gone (does not like Ross Lyon....because he does not rate him) Thomas didn't either. Or at least not half as much as he rates himself. Quote: Either way, get him while he's cheap." He'd be cheap for a reason- he's a 'C Grader', but people (and the big GOOOOOOSE himself) believe he's an 'A Grader' for the simple fact that James Brayshaw likes the way his nickname rolls of his tongue. Regular appearances on The Footy Show and Triple M radio can't hide the fact that he is a very, very ordinary footballer. If the people over there at St. Kilda don't rate him, why should we? Don't believe the hype.

Like the basketball anaolgy, however, you're forgetting that the Chicago Bulls were pretty much 'irrelevant' before Jordan came along, and soon slipped back into a similar state in the wake of his retirement. Whilst they have acheived some recent on-court sucess after several years of missing the play-offs in the post-Jordan era, their popularity with the public will never compare to what it was when Jordan was gracing the floors of the Chicago Stadium/ United Arena. The point is, Michael Jordan made the Chicago Bulls, not the other way around. If he was playing for the Bucks they would have been the biggest and best team of the late 80's- early 90's, and you'd be using the Bulls as your example of an 'irrelevant' team. Chris Judd has the ability to make a Jordan-like impact on a franchise such as Melbourne. He has the ability to draw the attention of the impartial follower, and as we've already seen in his time at WCE, be universally admired by opposition players and fans alike. At Collingwood, Judd would simply be the 'Shaq' of the LA Lakers. He'd be the biggest player in the biggest team in the competition, but his ability to leave an ever-lasting impression on a franchise would be lost. On-court, the Lakers are certainly not as strong as they were since Shaq's defection, but you wouldn't know it judging from the glamour and countless celebrities who continue to associate themselves with the club. The point is that like the Lakers, Collingwood is not going to be adversely affected as a franchise through the depature of an icon such as Judd. If Judd were to play for Melbourne, people would still be talking about him in 2057 as they currently do about Robbie Flower 20+ years after his retirement. Judd would almost be bigger than the club he plays for. Is this an ideal scenario for Chris Judd, or indeed the Melbourne Football Club? Who knows. But you can bet your bottom dollar the Chicago Bulls would give anything possible to attract a player to their club who could impact their franchise in the manner that Jordan did in the 90's, which is the exact reason why the MFC needs to do everything in their power to try and lure Chris Judd.

I have a question regarding the revenue received on match day- I read somewhere that due to Melbourne's poor attendences in recent weeks they have been operating at a loss, somewhere in the vicinity of $40,000 per match. This was clearly a catalyst for the promotion ran last week- and again for the Adelaide game- offerring so-called Melbourne "fans" the chance to win $1,000 for attending the match. Desperate times call for desperate measures... Furthermore, for many years the Melbourne Football Club has not only had to battle poor attendences, but also the MCC, in order to win its own supporters. Recently, some great work by the Club's Administration has led to some respite on this matter. However, whilst the joint MCC-Melbourne FC membership initiative should generally be considered a win for the club, it is only a minor one considering the large proportion of the membership fees are still retained by the MCC. Whilst I understand the MCC-MFC membership is a whole other issue in its own right, it leads to my question- do the Melbourne Football Club receive any monetary remuneration for an MCC member's attendence on match-day? Does the MCC for that matter receive any revenue through the match-day attendence of its members? Or is any MCC match-day revenue limited to guest passes and what-not, assuming that match-day financial benefits are consumed through the intial purchase of the membership? (i.e. the purchase of an MCC membership is the equivalent of pre-paying for the matches you attend, therefore whether you attend or not is irrelevant in financial terms?) It's common knowledge that Melbourne, and all clubs for that matter, generate revenue through the sales of club memberships. It's also common knowledge that Melboune gains nothing from the sale of MCC memberships, unless of course that member agrees to pay an additional fee to become an MCC-Melbourne member. What is less common knowledge is how the financial benefits gained from club membership translate to match day financial benefits for the club. Can anyone shed some light as to how a club makes a profit on match-day? I'm assuming there's some sort of scenario where the home club is required to pay some sort of 'lease' to the ground they are playing at, and in return they receive the gate receipts for the match. (Is this right? If so, what impact does the match-day attendence of a paid-up member have on the gate receipts, considering no money changes hands upon entry?) There is no doubt that big attendences lead to big dollars. Look at Collingwood. But how exactly do these big attendences lead to these big dollars? Do the small clubs, such as Melbourne, rely on the walk-up Collingwood fans paying at the gate in order to win-out financially on the big Home fixtures? Or does the Melbourne Football Club benefit financially from a large contingent of paid-up members attending? For example, do the clubs receive additional revenue to that already obtained by selling a membership through the match day attendence of a member? (i.e. Do the clubs receive say, $150 for selling a membership, and then a further $25 (for example) for every match attended by that member?) Or are the clubs required to subsidise their member's match-day attendence out of the amounts received for the club memberships? If this is the case, then it appears that non-member and opposition supporters would be more appealing to the club on match-day than actual members, as the members attendence will have no positive fianancial impact. The reason I ask is that I am an AFL member, with Melbourne being my 'club of support'. My family are also Melbourne-AFL members, and have been good enough to buy this membership on my behalf whilst I am at university. However, for the last 3 years I have also decided to take advantage of the Melbourne Concession Membership available as a uni student, paying around $110 out of my own pocket because I love the club. I therefore have two Melbourne memberships, yet I only ever use one. Herin lies my question: would the Melbourne Football Club benefit financially if I were to enter the ground using my AFL membership, get a pass-out or simply walk straight out, and then re-enter using my Melbourne Concession membership? While I'm at it, my father is unable to attend the Adelaide game due to work commitments; should I repeat this process and also enter on his ticket? Or will this simply have no effect on the match-day revenue of the club, and merely boost the attendence figure by a measly two non-existent patrons? Whilst the former scenario would not produce an accurate match-day attendence figure, and some may argue (but I doubt they would considering our recent attendences) that I am denying somebody else the chance to watch the game by taking up a seat or two that I will never use. However, if the club were to gain an extra $50 (per my above example) by my simply taking an extra two minutes to enter and re-enter the ground, surely its worth it? Maybe this week we will only lose $39,950 against Adelaide, but I suppose it's a start... Thoughts?

Really like the look of this kid. Not a bad comparrison Ooze God- CJ appears to move similar and from what i've seen his kicking is just as good. If only he turns out half as good as Dal ... ! The 2003 draft certaintly provided the MFC with some good, young talent- #3 Sylvia, #5 McLean and #36 (f/s) Johnson. Very happy with what i've seen so far.