titan_uranus

Off the top of my head, Hawthorn last year were 8th but made the prelim, and GWS in 2023 finished 7th but made the prelim.

Well, we did beat the premier last year, plus another finalist (Fremantle). We ended with 7 wins and a percentage of 93.3%; Hawthorn in 2023 had 7 wins and a percentage of 80%. That aside, I think you're probably over-rating Hawthorn in 2023/24 a little, if not a lot. The top two results from a Google search for 2024 season previews had the ABC forecasting Hawthorn would finish bottom 3 with 7-8 wins, and Fox citing King, Montagna and Hudson who all thought they'd finish bottom 4 in 2024.

Your second post explains the first. Hawthorn may have spent 5 years down the bottom before 2024, but they didn't experience any sort of gradual improvement. They went from tripe in 2023 (and for the first 5 weeks of 2024) into a top 4 and prelim final contender. If you had applied your "the real world tends to behave in more or less predictable ways" to Hawthorn at this time in 2024, you would have said "it's hard to see them doing much better than they have over the last couple of seasons". And, again, as you'll no doubt make it sound like I need to say this - I am not saying that this is the likely outcome for us in 2026. I'm merely saying it's possible.

Why do you say it like this (the bolded bit)? Like we didn’t choose to have the injuries. Saying “we haven’t given ourselves the best chance of success” makes it sound like we’ve had players out late drinking or something stupid like that. When from all reports, the group have been flogging themselves at training. If anything, we’ve given ourselves the best chance of success despite the injuries. And FWIW, I suspect Gold Coast having 1 guy in rehab will be an outlier. We may be at the other end of the spectrum but if your yardstick for success is a pre-season with 1 in rehab, you’re going to be let down 99% of the time.

They look ugly. It’s our reality though. It’s been covered on here already. We’re not an attractive proposition for sponsorship right now. So we take what we can get.

As these posts all say, there are a number of reasons why we’re a disaster when it comes to sponsorship. We’ve been boring to watch. We’ve been involved in games with low goal counts. We’ve struggled to attract crowds and therefore play in what appears to be an empty MCG. This year we are away in the two major marquee games we get. Our membership count is shrinking when 17 other clubs are growing. Our social media presence has been woeful. We had our name attached (fairly or not) to a bunch of “scandals”. And now our most marketable player (maybe 2nd to Gawn) walked out on us. We can’t control most of this. And the easiest fix probably is to get back to being not just competitive on the field, but fun to watch. But, at the grave risk of re-starting a debate many on here detest (and fair enough too), if you can afford a membership but have refused to buy one as a form of protest, you aren’t helping. And if you could attend games but chose not to as a form if protest, you aren’t helping. Buy a membership. Get to games when you can. Make us appear bigger and more worthy of someone’s financial investment. Yes, still demand the club carry out its end of the bargain, but this is something we can do a little bit to help with.

How does this compare to other clubs? I know there have been a bunch of injuries reported this week. Not sure how our list stacks up, but it looks terrible to me.

Maths might be slightly out here @Redleg . 30,000 members would have to pay an additional $1,000 to get $30 million. $100 a pop would only generate $3m.

Hawthorn was 8-19 in their 27 games leading into 2024, in which they started 0-5, before making finals. Brisbane won 17 games in four complete seasons (2015-18) before making top 4 in 2019 (and not missing finals since). Sydney was 13-26 in their 39 games leading into 2021, in which they made finals. It can turn quickly.

We won 7 games in 2025 with Trac and Oliver. We lose Trac. We “cover” Oliver to an extent with Steele. We gain in some other areas (Mihocek and CJ, another (full) pre-season for Langford and Lindsay). We also get to see what the rest of the list does when freed from whatever the previous administration had hanging over them. With all that said, I don’t see us making finals but I’d be more surprised at us winning 6 games or fewer as I would at us winning 10+ games.

Cowboys, Ravens, Chargers

He mentioned it at the AGM. What else should he say? We, like a few other AFL clubs and a stack of big companies, plus the government, got sucked in. No need to dwell on that failure.

Patriots, Seahawks, Rams

Hard agree, didn’t mean to suggest otherwise.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/embattled-security-firm-haemorrhaging-high-profile-clients-amid-growing-scandals-20251219-p5np28.html We’ve terminated our sponsorship agreement with MA Services. Won’t be on our guernsey. Wonder how much this will cost us.

It's not that we're not able to announce at the AGM. There's plenty of reasons why that might be the case. It's that Guerra buttered us up to be ready to hear all about it tonight at the AGM. He's trying very hard to impress, Guerra, but I don't want him overpromising and underdelivering, which unfortunately he's done in this instance.

Eagles, Bills, 49ers

Ravens, Chargers, Packers

I only like the second one, of the three. The club's major shift of late in relation to social media, communication and engagement with the fans is a major improvement. I love that they're asking us to vote on the Gather Round guernsey (because it's otherwise totally meaningless - I doubt we'll be asked for input on the ANZAC or SDN guernseys). It's a shame, though, that the designs aren't great.

Gee we timed this sponsorship well, didn’t we. First bikies, now tax troubles. https://www.theage.com.au/national/blue-chip-companies-used-security-firm-facing-massive-tax-workplace-probes-20251203-p5nkez.html

Rams, Broncos, Seahawks

Jags, Rams, Broncos

We actually haven’t played GWS in NSW since 2014. We’ve only ever had 6 away games against them in their 14 year history, and 4 of those have been at Manuka. Not sure if it’s a record but we’ve only played them at Giants Stadium twice ever.

It is on the website - https://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/1932463/notice-of-annual-general-meeting

A stack of completely uninformed opinions in here, which mine would be too if I tried to discuss accounting with any authority. “Creative accounting”, “poorly run business”, etc - are those having a crack at the club paid up members? On my reading of the documents, we lost $1M compared to 2024 in our membership drop off alone. That might be a sign of a bad season on field, but is it necessarily a sign of a poorly run club off field? And the club repeatedly says that we have to list the Goodwin and Oliver payments up front this year even though we are paying them spread out over the next 1-4 years. I have no idea what the rules are but I can at least appreciate why this might be the case. That we have to make the payments may again be a sign of bad football department decision making but is it bad corporate governance or accounting?