45HG

I suggest you return to that argument and see who you were arguing with, because it certainly wasn't me.(Nice quote by the way...given it was pretty clearly sarcastic) I thought that Primus were not going to re-sign with us and that was pretty much a foregone conclusion, happy to be corrected, but if it's true then sacking P Mac had nothing to do with losing the Primus deal. You can't really claim we couldn't afford financially to sack McNamee as we only paid him for the work he did, we did not pay out any long-term contract. If Stynes had a plan and McNamee didn't fit it, then I agree with removing him, what does worry me is that it took so long to find a replacement and I'm still yet to see a distinct direction the club is taking in terms of making ourselves viable for the future. Again, the Dogs have a ground they could rename, they have had a successful season past and are looking at a very successful season this year...and yet they only just signed a major sponsor! I can't really see how Schwab has overseen the club at an easier time than P Mac, that doesn't make sense. Since then we have finished stone cold last, we'd just lost the services of our longest serving Captain, been given an absolutely rubbish "draw" and the world's economy has gone utterly down the toilet. And yet we have been able to claim a spot at Casey for our long term future, though I'm still bewildered why we haven't been given more detail as of yet. We've removed almost half our debt, which I understand must be only a one off thing and is not part of a sustainable business plan, but it's still a great effort. Again, I'm not excusing them for everything, but I think they should be allowed a little more time to find a sponsor given a top 3 side with more free to air exposure, a spot in the finals nearly guaranteed this year, only recently managed to. And if you continue to disagree, I'd like to see an alternative you have. Or are you just going to apportion blame to certain parties without sticking your neck out and saying what we should actually do

So then I'm supposed to take your word for it, seeing as you're clearly not going to label anyone or anything they've said? Of course, the State Government is already asking the hard questions of Jim Stynes, I mean, what else do they have to do? Do you believe these questions weren't already being raised Mid-last year as were spiralling past a debt of $5mil? So no it's Connolly's fault we don't have a sponsor, far out what is going on with you two? I'd hardly call what's happening in the media at the moment as asking the hard questions, if they wanted to they could probably try and lynch us, but they obviously don't think they have enough. When we do sign a sponsor, are you going to turn around and say, well they're OK then? It's the other thing about Mission 'Bub. They're new to the AFL arena, and probably looking to spread their name (I've never heard of them). There is a possibility we were never actually in the hunt, which is a worry but doesn't mean we were "outmaneourvered." I am getting concerned, but I don't think using this position to start a movement against Stynes/Schwab would be of any use, indeed it could be the final nail in the MFC heart

Exactly, it's also what makes me skeptical about what they say and how much credit I should give their arguments

Getting rid of P Mac may well have been a bad decision, and we may well be paying the price for it, but I don't think it should be written as removing him 8 days prior to the expiry of the Primus deal - as though sacking him cost us the Primus Sponsorship. Are you guys seriously saying Schwab and Stynes are the only reason we don't have a sponsor?

Wow, I always wondered how Melbourne supporters became so divided in 1996. Behaviour like this shows it pretty clearly

Do you have any info on this, or are you just talking crap?

We don't pull ratings because we have probably the lowest supporter base in the league, lower supporter base = less people to watch. Obviously it's not the only reason, but you can't say it's not a large reason. Now that we're at the bottom, the AFL and the TV stations have taken us off their radar, but don't forget that in 2006 our first 10 games were shown on free to air, go figure. The "natural list rebuild" is a result of poor list management, recruiting and poor development. The list should have been better handled through the 00's, but we're now at a stage where we are forced to overhaul the mistakes of the past. No team can stay near the top, so regardless we were always going to endure a down period. All teams have, it's a natural cycle. Some teams get lucky and spend a smaller amount of time at the bottom, some other's are Richmond. Why did the Bulldogs, seemingly on the verge of success, with a home base and greater financial stability, only now sign a major sponsor? You say we haven't rated well for over a decade, yet we have signed major sponsors in the past. If we were a chance to make finals this year, or if we were likely to, I believe we'd have a major sponsor by now. It doesn't mean I'm happy with where the club is at, and obiously there is a lot of work for the club to do, but I don't see us being any more or less bland than any other club.

Is that why Collingwood their major sponsorship during their riveting period of 2004-2005 and why after finishing 3rd this year the Dogs only just signed a major sponsor, and had to rename a new stadium to do so. Poor leadership? As in from the players or behind the scenes? Utter bulldust to claim that we have a poor following because we are "bland." Their are many reasons why we unfortunately have a shortage of supporters, which are being addressed by the club at present. Perhaps you should whinge a little less and help a little more. Poor list - bland? What exactly do you want? Is Carlton Bland, Richmond? Recruiting problems from 2000-2002 and a lack of quality draft picks between 2004-2006 and no rebuilding after the '03 disaster. We had LG as a sponsor, replaced with Primus who are now unable to continue. One of the worst economic situations encountered in the free world happens to coincide with a natural list rebuild that comes after trying to hang on to possible glory for too long. And as far as the reasons I offered earlier, we were not given no free-to-air exposure because of blandness, it was given because the AFL are a bunch of cheats who care only for the bottom line. It's very easy to kick a poor club when we're down. Aren't we financially insecure partly because we don't have a sponsor? Sponsorship is one of the ways to make a team financially stable. If we were given free to air exposure and were at the 2004 end of our rebuild instead of the Carlton model circa 2003, I'd wager we'd find it a lot easier to get a sponsor

I'll meet you in the bar

Welcome aboard guys! Always good to have an outside perspective!

If I don't get stuck in the back pocket! haha, hope i don't bugger my foot again. It's looking prety positive, should be good to go

I hope you enjoy the Red and Blue mate! Maybe it'll entice you to ditch the White

they'll need it

How much exposure do you guys exactly want from us in January? The only "exposure" we could get is if one of our players belted someone at a bar or landed a plane on a river. AFL - January, c'mon guys! Mission did not sign with the Dogs because of exposure at the moment. I've hardly heard boo from them, or really any other team, all summer - the way it should be. We have no big game (except one) or free-to-air exposure and a slim-naught chance of making finals, I'd wager that had more of an impact on Mission signing with the Dogs than our "blandness"

I was 5 months, don't recall much, was probably hungry at some stage

Call them up Biz. Whatever happened to that ad with Neita as Mr T? I never saw it!

And not play on in the goal square, get tackled and miss the goal!

When your club makes the finals twice in a quarter of a century, I suppose you may feel the need to take a swipe at other team's lack of success, even if it's more successful than yours

They're not ticketed members, they just get a ticket to go to the game organised through the club.

According to Footywire, Freo's team average age was about 2 years over where it should have been because they listed one of the players as being born on Jan 1 1900. Just another one to add to their great recruiting history

Future members though, and that's the point! Go dees

Great Work D_N! Fantastic work

With membership up on this time last year, I'd say we're ticking along OK at the moment. (obiously aside from Sponsorship which isn't a matter of design). Whilst I'm a little concerned at the lack of announcements, I also understand that the club should make them at a time that best suits them and helps us, we should not announce anything simply for the sake of it. Indeed, if the intake of Membership starts to slow before the start of the Season, Sponsorship and Captaincy could help revive it, similarly an announcement of a long-standing agreement with Casey (surely dependant on us first getting a Sponsor) will probably be made at a time that best suits the club and helps us to attract more members. Guys, be patient, it's January 14th FFS.

How about LG...

Though I'm unsure what "elite" exactly is and how to categorise players as such (therefore which players would actually fit) I'd have to agree these guys aren't elite. Davey flirted with the proposition, but IMO his move to the midfield has put a stop to that, Sylvia flirts with thinking of himself as elite and Jones is a long way from the prospect of being considered elite, but does have time on his side and a lot of players around him to improve