Jump to content

Lord Nev

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by Lord Nev

  1. 19 hours ago, picket fence said:

    Spargo doesnt play wing he plays defensive forward and adds nothing to our scoring power

    Spargo is statistically the most effective kick inside 50 in a team that notoriously struggles with kicks inside 50.

    Would be great for him to do it more, but it's completely incorrect to say he adds nothing to our scoring power.


    • Like 6
    • Thanks 4
    • Love 1
  2. 6 minutes ago, DubDee said:

    Why do people think he would leave?

    21 year old who moved interstate for work at 18, lost his Mum and his family are all in other states with his strongest connection in SA. Hasn't re-signed yet and despite the club saying he loves Melbourne I haven't as yet seen anything mentioned about talks progressing (might have missed that somewhere though).

    Not saying he will go, personally I think he'll stay, but add the above to the rumblings of media types with Port connections and you can understand why supporters are a little worried and think it's a chance.

    • Like 6
  3. 1 hour ago, Rodney (Balls) Grinter said:

    The other thing that I feel comes into this is does our players getting tackled with ball in hand give the impression that we are slow?

    While it would depend on the circumstances sometimes players getting takled and disposesed with the ball is a good sign as it means they are taking the time to seek out and deliver to the right option with steadied delivery. 

    When it's done right, it's to the team's benifit, but you can't get away with it all the time and getting tackled in possession 5%-10% is I think the price you have to accept sometimes.  Doesn't mean the player is slow and or too slow to dispose of the ball by nature.  I remember a bull of a midfield playing coach of mine often emphasising this point and stating that the best players would rather take the risk of getting tackled and "Wear one for the team" than to feed the ball out in a way that put a team mate under imeediate pressure.

    I reckon this is where ANB gets a raw deal from some on Demonland personally. IMO, almost every time he gets caught with the ball he's just received it from a teammate under pressure. It would be amazing if he had hands like Clarry, but how rare is that?! I think this is one of the reasons he keeps getting selected (along with his running ability and pressure) - in that he will genuinely do what is best for the team even if it earns him the ire of supporters who don't see the big picture.

    • Like 5
  4. 50 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Don't worry Nev - a contested election there will be - though I expect MFC members won't hear anything about it until the voting starts.......we're not good at transparency......puts too much pressure on the incumbents.

    All disagreements aside, put your hand up and have a crack. There's clearly a few really passionate about the current board and the processes, and it's slow going with the training base as well, so if yourself or the others that are pretty fired up have any skills that would be useful then maybe it's worth the effort? You're not going to change anything via Demonland, but if you can capture the enthusiasm of the members then maybe you can get your opportunity to show what you can do and that things can work better.

    If you're not going to do that, then honestly I just don't see the point in complaining on the internet.

    • Like 1
  5. 2 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

    If I had to pick between Sparrow and Jordon as a first midfield options it's Jordon for me, by a fair bit.

    I like JJ, and he's almost a victim of being too versatile, but the one thing he doesn't have is a burst, and when you look at Goody's midfield mix with Clarry, Trac, Viney, Sparrow, then over to players like ANB, Harmes and even Kozzy, they all have that burst from the pack when needed. Even Gus has a way of being able to make space off a few steps despite not being quick. I can't see JJ breaking into that group until he adds some kind of ability to 'step away' into his game.

    Have felt the same with the comparison to Junior, just doesn't quite have Junior's legs yet, but he's had more than his fair share of bad luck across his development so he's probably go a lot of improvement still in him.

    • Like 2
  6. 23 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Don't have the requisite casino marketing skills......

    I mean, there's a nomination system which has previously let Peter Lawrence nominate and then it goes to a vote. Wouldn't have thought someone who bangs on about the board so much would give up so easily, I guess that's probably a blessing then as far as what we'd want from a board member.

  7. On 12/24/2022 at 10:48 PM, 4_Kent_Watts said:

    Get Chandler and Bowey back in the team, playing in the forward line. Reckon they can make a big difference. 

    I'm definitely keen on Bowey being back in the side regularly, Chandler will be an interesting one - With Bedford gone and the talk of Kozzy playing some midfield then the opportunity should be there for him.

    • Like 1
  8. 3 hours ago, adonski said:

    Jimmer Jordon was 4th in the b&f after round 16

    Tough to believe he wasn't playing to instruction and/or had limited options to actually go fast to when accused of holding the ball up 

    He is criminally underrated on here, while we have mids like Sparrow who provide half the output who get a pump up every time they take a p1$s 

    Same Tom Sparrow who finished higher than Jordon and won the coaches award?


    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  9. 4 minutes ago, Slartibartfast said:

    All of them.  There hasn't been a membership vote on Directors from 2003 (Phillips and Coglin) to when Peter Lawrence nominated.

    That doesn't seem correct. Even when Bartlett was parachuted in he stood for re-election at the next AGM (2013). Even with the changes to the constitutions, directors still had to be re-elected didn't they?

    And is that due to there being no contests? Bit hard to blame the board for getting re-elected if no one is challenging them.

    • Facepalm 1
  10. 18 minutes ago, A F said:

    Yep, I'm happy to define what is not best practice.

    The board telling us who to vote for *and* replacing board members prior to a public advertisement of a position.

    Truly staggering you wouldn't want the club to publicly advertise the position first before putting in a new incumbent without first reviewing all possible applicants.

    Stop with the rhetoric - The board recommending whom to vote for based on the existing mix of skill sets is entirely acceptable. You can then decide for yourself who you wish to vote for.

    I might have missed it, but I've not seen a "new incumbent" put in permanently without a vote. Do you have some examples? Yes, there's been temporary positions filled when others have retired or moved on, but that position has always been pending an upcoming vote. At least from what I've seen.

    • Like 2
    • Facepalm 1
  11. 23 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:

    Quick question Lord Nev - can you explain why we have had five different sets of election rules in just two years? It goes to AF's point about process. Your mantra that you can vote for whoever you like needs deeper analysis. There is no openness in how the field is assembled. AF has desrcibed that. And once the race starts, have a look at the fairness of the rules that are applied - they're on the website (the fifth set). The response (I anticipate) that the rules apply equally to all candidates doesn't stack up against an Election Committee made up entirely of Board members and a Candidate Assessment Committee (CAC) made up of two Board members and just one outsider. Do the incumbents need to be assessed? - the latest "Board's pick) has just been sworn in. What if a non-incumbent emerged as a candidate with better qualiifications and experience? Would the CAC give the outsider the 'Badge' on the ballot papers and inform the brand new Director they had made a terrible mistake? I suspect not.

    Take them to court again if you're so keen on change mate.

    • Facepalm 1
  12. 33 minutes ago, A F said:

    I said how can we know we have the best candidates and therefore a diversity of views, without following best practice? The answer is we can't know. So the solution is to follow best practice, otherwise eventually this will bite us in the rear. Who knows, all the Bartlett nonsense this year may well have had a destabilising effect that cost us a flag. Again, we don't know.

    But this is YOUR version of best practice. I'm saying, given the evidence, it seems we already have best practice happening.

    33 minutes ago, A F said:

    So the ends justify the means? Installing board members without publicly advertising them is fine because we've won premierships? Doesn't wash with me in this instance.

    If by "the ends justify the means" you mean the evidence says it's working, then yes.


    33 minutes ago, A F said:

    The FD and the players should take the majority of credit for the flag. The board did well to oust Bartlett and maintain stability in season, but how did they let it get to that in season? Again, not ideal.

    Come on mate, I suspect you'd be one of the first blaming the board if we failed to win a flag, in fact, you intimated as much in this very post. Can't have it both ways.

    33 minutes ago, A F said:

    Who knows, all the Bartlett nonsense this year may well have had a destabilising effect that cost us a flag. Again, we don't know.


    • Facepalm 2
  13. Just now, A F said:

    I've answered this, Nev. Read closely.

    No you haven't. The board recommending candidates based on their skill set doesn't mean there won't be any "differing views". Again, evidence please. I got hand picked for my job and I certainly often have differing views to those who selected me.

    Just now, A F said:

    Yes and no. The best thing this board has provided is stability, but at a point that's not enough.

    Personally I would have said the best thing a board can do is contribute to financial success and premierships. Do you feel we've lacked in those areas recently?

    Just now, A F said:

    The elephant in the room on this one is the never-ending home base saga. In prepared to wait on that, but I'm talking about board processes and best practice (see below again.)

    100% the home base saga is an issue, but that's been an issue for decades so not sure I'd put the blame solely on the current board.

    Just now, A F said:

    You seem to be misrepresenting my view here. I'm saying the board processes need to be changed, so we ensure we get the best mix. I'm not referring to a specific board member, I'm concerned with board processes and our board following best practice and democratic processes to ensure we get the best.

    You'll notice I've said the same thing twice here as you seem to think I'm making a different point...

    Apologies if I have, sincerely, and I do understand you have concerns about the process - But I guess my point is, there needs to be evidence that that process has hurt us a club, specific evidence, and given our success the last few years then to me the only specific thing I can ask for is who on the board hasn't done a good job and who has missed out that shouldn't have - That kind of evidence would then prove the process is faulty.

    From the outside of the club, I see no reason to question the process given it's effectiveness, but I'm open to changing my mind if the many complaining about the board can provide specific evidence to the contrary.

    • Facepalm 1
  14. 1 minute ago, A F said:

    Do I have any proof? What I explained is pretty much public record. They've told us that a board member has retired and/or their term is up, and that an interim board member has been selected by the board (not by members) to replace the outgoing member, and then the board has told us who to vote for.

    Sorry, to explain more clearly for you - I was asking if you have proof there's no "differing views"? I did ask that pretty plainly really.

    1 minute ago, A F said:

    Who I voted for is irrelevant. They shouldn't be telling us who to vote for, nor replacing board members prior to a public advertisement of the position. I'm surprised anyone thinks this is okay or best practice.

    We differ here. I have absolutely no problems with the board recommending candidates based on overall mix of skills and explaining why they have made that recommendation. You are still free to vote for who you wish.

    1 minute ago, A F said:

    We don't know whether we've got the right board members with the most diverse and applicable skills, because vacant positions have been filled by the board hand-picking them prior to a public announcement.

    Good financials and a flag at every level provides a fair bit of evidence the board is working well. Again, I'm open to seeing your evidence of otherwise.

    1 minute ago, A F said:

    Again, the board is clearly opereting a closed shop. If you're happy with that, that's your thing, but they've broken my trust by operating in this manner.

    Again, you're free to vote for who you wish.

    1 minute ago, A F said:

    'm all for board stability, we were a basketcase that I'm not keen to revert to, but when the board is not following best practice and keeping a closed shop, it's not a stretch to suggest there is room for change on the board.

    Then again I'll ask, specifically who would you remove from the board and who would you replace them with?

    There really seems to not be much in the way of factual evidence of the board not working well or suggestions on who should be replaced forthcoming from those who are continuing this agenda.

    • Facepalm 2
  15. 13 minutes ago, A F said:

    Do you think our board processes are great, Katrina? Does the board selection process enable the best candidates? Or does it exclude candidates? I think it's clearly the latter. 

    As for AGM electioneering, you realise our current and former Presidents have told us who to vote for two years in a row? There's divisive electioneering and then there's running a deliberately exclusive little group that keeps a closed shop. We've seen board members retire and new 'temporary' board members installed before the position has been advertised, and then presidents telling us to vote for them and the incoming board member. It's really not on IMV and if the board really wanted the best board, they'd be open to differing views, rather than simply stacking it with their friends.

    It's also not great to dismiss a view by suggesting they go and follow another club if they have a differing view from you.

    There's a difference between "stacking it with their friends" and having a broad skill set range on the board that can help us achieve success. Do you have any proof there's no differing views?

    All the evidence, on field and off, points to the board working very effectively, so I'm interested to see the solid evidence you have that there's no "differing views" and it's not the best board it can be.

    Yes, based on the makeup of the board and the range of skills needed the board have recommended candidates, but you know you're totally free to vote for whomever you decide to yes?

    Out of interest, whom out of the current board would you remove and whom would you replace them with?

    • Like 1
    • Facepalm 1
  16. 11 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

    Hawthorn are doing it to build their Dingley facility, even though it is not built yet, because they know you cannot depend upon government largesse alone.  

    Hang on, you've also previously complained about Hawthorn getting government money, this feels like a bit of a bet each way.

    Hawthorn will be getting $20m from the federal government, they're expecting about $15m from the state government, $5m from local grants, they're receiving a $10m donation from an ex-pres and they're going to use around $16m from the sale of their pokies venues apparently, that's 2/3s of the expected $100m cost.

    As of around November, they'd apparently gathered less than $1m in donations towards Dingley from supporters.

    Supposedly they have another $25m or so to find, and if a Tassie team comes in their finances will take a hit.

    Can you name any clubs that have built an entirely new base using only supporter donations? Can you imagine the supporter reaction if the club asked for that?

    • Like 3
  17. 1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

    Thanks for posting od.

    Just on this comment that "the players love Casey" - it's not necessarily the current players I'm worried about but how it might be a disadvantage in recruiting players from other clubs. If it's between us and Collingwood, Carlton, Footscray, Essendon even Saints, what is the more lucrative location? Obviously there may be other reasons players choose to come to us and creating a great environment is key but at the end of the day all other things being equal it will set us at a disadvantage.

    Hasn't stopped us trading in May, Lever, Grundy, Langdon, Brown etc. though.

    North Melbourne is a more "lucrative" location than Casey, how are they going attracting talent?

    • Like 1
  18. 8 minutes ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:

    Currently, the corner of Punt Rd and Swan St has a massive vacant block sitting there. It used to be a car rental place. It was cleared and one apartment/hotel was put up. It looks half completed and abandoned. The rest of that block is completely vacant. If we are serious, we could take that block and put all the club offices and a training facility in there. Players simply walk across the road to Goash’s 


    Ha! Was literally thinking about this the other day when driving past! Yeah there's the vacant corner spot and that block of apartments/offices has never been completed and has been sitting there doing nothing for a couple of years.

    I wonder if that could house our admin, shop, pool(s), meeting rooms etc and then maybe that corner over near the bridge we were looking at could house the gym/changerooms so players can walk straight out pretty much onto Gosch's? Not exactly "all in one" but pretty good and over time we may even be able to obtain more spots in that area and really make it ours.


    • Like 3
  • Create New...