Lord Nev
-
Posts
6,853 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
45
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Lord Nev
-
-
49 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:
You didn't want to address the point on the Election Rules. So it seems you are OK with the Board changing Election Rules depending upon what type of 'characters' nominate. Doesn't seem like a fair or open process? I have an idea you might support - why don't we make one more change to the Constitution to say that the Board shall elect the Board each year, and we can do away with these pesky elections.
Why don't you sue your way onto the board...
-
1
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Hawk the Demon said:
Speaking of rules and fainess. The MFC's Third set of Election Rules (there were two sets the year before) were issued immediately prior to the one-week Director nomination period opened at the end of November 2021. Candidates apply. Then a Fourth set of Election Rules are issued in January 2022. Nice to have 'absolute discretion' as to how elections are run.
Perhaps they knew ahead of time the character of certain nominees that some of us have since discovered for ourselves... ;)
Say hi to your mate.
-
2
-
-
On 11/20/2022 at 11:06 AM, Hawk the Demon said:
The current MFC Election Rules (we have had four different versions in the last two years) state that Candidates are not permitted to engage in electioneering. No interview to be transmitted to the general public. No posting to a website or to a social media platform. The rest of the rules are on the Club website - Club > Governance > Elections. Does that lead to a fair and open election?
I mean, if the rules are the same for everyone then that's the very definition of fair isn't it?
The rules also say each candidate is entitled to a 300 word statement and a photo.
-
1
-
-
On 11/17/2022 at 12:44 PM, Slartibartfast said:
Hawthorn is having an election and choice we were denied with the members having the opportunity to hear from candidates and then making an informed choice.
Ah yes, Hawthorn, the democratic gold standard hey...
"He told the Herald Sun on Sunday night he was furious the Hawthorn executive and current board had used its official social media and website, as well as the club’s membership database, to communicate their position on the election but deny rivals the same opportunity."
“The fact the nominations closed the day they came out, they have tried to suppress opposition. It is straight out of Putin’s playbook. Suppress opposition and control the media.”
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Demonsone said:
Exactly which proposals have they put fwd??? The latest one which Pert discussed was a facility to be built next Josh’s Paddock close to AAMI Park .. We continue to go around in circles and would have thought the calibre of Jackson & Pert would have nailed it!
So you're saying here you know we went the government with an official plan drawn up for that little triangle next to Gosch's and the government said no? Can you tell me exactly where you got that information? That seems new.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Demonsone said:
We are so far behind the competition & the Afl needs to address this gap with crappy stadium deals, not sure how state gvt can support 1 team with 142m and the MFC can’t even get a training facility commitment
I agree the Geelong stuff is ridiculous, but can you tell me exactly which proposals we've taken to the state government and had turned down?
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, Kick_It_To_Pickett said:
Listening to the bloke from the government in this video, the first one, there was a big emphasis on the natural environment and the keeping of trees. I’ll throw a really obscure idea out. Make a sustainable wood stand, let the trees come up out of seating. Get a small facility in there, that looks like it’s part of the natural landscape. Make it a landmark eco friendly, energy generating, solar powered boutique standout that can host AFLW and we might get some funding.
just trying to think outside the box
Like it mate. Definitely feels like any kind of community 'angle' we can put forward the better, and will definitely help with the amount of funding or getting certain plans approved, but I honestly think our biggest obstacle is just the land itself. Me personally, I'd much rather have us build something amazing further out - maybe out in an area like Kew, Camberwell, out to Burwood, Ashwood etc - than squeeze some half baked facilities into a little corner off Gosch's.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, chookrat said:
Lord Nev, there is open grass everywhere and if we cut a few trees down there is even more room. From memory the Jolimont proposal wouldn't have even required any trees to be cut down and admin would have been over the railway. From what I understand the main objection has been from a few hundred East Melbourne locals concerned that they will lose space to walk their dogs and if the state government are onboard it wouldn't take much to cut through their nonsense.
Lol. Come off it mate.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, chookrat said:
Lord Nev, while the money is not the issue a lack of commitment at AFL and State Government level to approve an option where we can build is. Our club has been working on options for more than 5 years now and to not have an announcement shows a lack of conviction to get this done. The land is there, the options are feasible, it should be a matter of choosing the best one and getting started.
How do you know this? Aside from Yarra Park, which was handled poorly, what other options have we gone to the state government with and been turned down for? What 'land is there' exactly? Which options are you speaking of? My guess, and it's a total guess, is that IF we've been turned down for other options (haven't heard of any though) it would likely be because they were similar to Yarra Park where it was a minimal at best chance of ever being approved.
We need to look outisde of the MCG precinct. We just won't get the facilities we should have anywhere in that area, and ideas about slipping a building into a corner or car park, moving things under ground, are all just half measures like we currently have. Don't see the point in doing anything then like that when we could build something actually fantastic and fit for purpose somewhere else.
-
3
-
-
More footy and more money for the club and people still complain.
We're 10-5 at Adelaide Oval, so this could be a win for us as well quite possibly.
We're spoiled in Melbourne with a semi-Magic Round most weeks, spare a thought for the footy loving fans of SA and WA who usually only get 1 AFL game a week, they'll be rapt with this.
-
2
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Roger Mellie said:
Yes, hard to have Adelaide and magic in the same sentence.
Tragic works though.
Obviously never went to Magic Mountain...
-
19 minutes ago, old dee said:
By AFL standards that is a pittance. The 7.5 was to Casey not the MFC. The state just gave $15 million to netball. We are getting scraps from the table.
The same Casey where we trained to win a flag and still train and play?
The reason we haven't received more is we don't have a location/land. Receiving nearly $10 million in government/council funds for our existing facilities when by our own admission they're probably temporary is pretty decent from that side of things IMO.
Just off the mark how people keep complaining about this apparent luck of funds and conspiracy theories about not enough votes etc.
Also - 'The State' didn't 'give' netball that, it was a business-efficient sponsorship from Visit Victoria's marketing budget. Not going further into that can of worms/cooker rant territory though.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Diamond_Jim said:
So we got an old oval resurfaced and some new change rooms 50k from the MCG
Yes, we got $2 million towards Gosch's and $7.5 million towards Casey.
You seemed to be saying we've got nothing from the government and we'd never see announcements from them - you were wrong.
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:
Governments love to announce... the more pie in the sky the better
Anyone ever heard a government announcement about the MFC
-
2
-
1
-
-
31 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:
I agree it isn't ground breaking.
But Max carries on, all fan boy, about Blicvas and Stanley sounding somewhat in awe. Fortunately he said: "... we can plan what we want to do but, in the end, it’s what Goody...wants us to do as well." So hopefully Goodwin has them performing better than two makeshift ruckman and we won't be just copycats!
Yeah it reads a bit award doesn't it? I wouldn't worry too much about their performance being superior to Blicavs and Stanley though, reckon they've got them covered!
-
2
-
-
2 minutes ago, Deemania since 56 said:
The concepts of limited blooding of junior players need not infer longer-term replacements onfield. However, their readiness to adjust to the bigtime when and if it comes would be heightened above the level of raw recruit with nothing but training familiarities with regular AFL teamsheets. Injuries were prolific for Demons this past season; as a consequence of little blooding, except for the now-departed Weed, limitation were worn onfield and across team sheets in a regressing series of disappointments.
I'm not sure I would call Tomlinson (168 games), Bowey (Premiership player), Chandler and Bedford (4th year players) or Weid (60 games) 'raw recruits'.
That is also beside the fact that you wouldn't bring them in expecting them to carry the team or have a big impact. Just play a role within our system that enables the managing of more needed players preparation for when they are required for the business end of the season.
If our game plan relies on an exact set of 22 players every week then we're in a bit of trouble.
-
4
-
-
12 hours ago, The heart beats true said:
Actually I’ll make it easier for you. In the last month we played 3rd away, 5th away, and 9th (fighting to stay alive) and 4th at home.
Geelong played 12th away and 8th, 10th and 17th at home.
I guarantee if we got that soft a draw we would have rested players.
We had well and truly started dropping off before the last month of game though. We had lost 5 of the previous 8 games before that last month. We didn't all of a sudden struggle because we came up against top 9 teams in the last month.
The whole point is managing the year with an eye to peaking at the right time, and it seems from the outside we absolutely got that wrong and came into that last month and then finals banged up and not ready.
Besides all that, Geelong were managing players half way through the year, they didn't just start doing it in the last month once they thought they had a good run home.
For us, the ship had pretty much sailed by the last month came around.
-
5
-
-
4 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:
Gawn and Grundy to replicate Cats strategy?
We have the best two ruckman in the land so we are just going to copy the tactics of two older part-timers? Tactics that will be yesterday's news by 2023!
Hope Goodwin has some better ideas...
TBF, I wouldn't have thought having one ruck in the middle and one floating back was totally groundbreaking for us given how much we've seen Gawn float back the last few years.
Not too many options when playing two rucks.
-
1
-
1
-
-
35 minutes ago, Palace Dees said:
The examples on this page are existing grounds with club history being re-developed. We haven't got that. I get the frustration but our task is a lot harder, especially as our preference is being close to the CBD.
Was just about to post the same kind of thing.
Our problem is lack of land.
-
1
-
-
38 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:
In hindsight, Just which players at Casey would people suggest as suitable selections to replace injured 1sts players?
JVR would have been the only one!
Weid as ruck to replace Max? Baker to replace Langdon? M.Brown to replace BBB?
Our backs were not the injured ones, neither were our mids.
Brown, Kossie, Rivers, Langdon, Max, Jackson, and Jordon were the obviously injured ones in the finals. So which Casey player would replace any of them? ( apart from JVR).
We have a serious depth problem that this scenario has shown up. 3 of the best Casey players this year are no longer at the club. 4 if you include Bedford. If injuries arise again in 2023, our situation is the same.
Bowey, Chandler, Bedford, Weid, JVR, Laurie, Tomlinson all could have been rotated through at different times late in the year without costing our system too much. You obviously wouldn't do too much at once, but giving the injured players that extra recovery could have made the world of difference.
Cats did it, worked alright for them this year hey?
-
6
-
-
31 minutes ago, Demonsone said:
One needs to question is the norm across all the afl clubs or is this of the coat tails of the premiership ( let’s hope not)
Not sure if you're serious here? There's tons and tons of these every year...
Here's a brief snapshot only from that same promoter, and it even features the current premiers! Oh boy! Hope they're not over celebrating hey!
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, Bring-Back-Powell said:
Conversely in finals, he only averaged 19 touches as a full time midfielder (I think) which suggests we could've been better served by Gus playing in a different position.
Yeah, in finals - 19 disposals and 8 turnovers per game...
-
1
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:
But boy was he inefficient with the ball in the midfield.
Averaged 7.6 turnovers per game once he went into the midfield.
Out of our other mids - Viney 5.4, Oliver 5.2, Trac 4.8.
During that period he averaged 27 disposals per game, which is less than both Clarry (32) and Trac (28).
-
4
-
-
36 minutes ago, FlashInThePan said:
The stats I provided are from this past year. But hey, you go with your eye, we are living in a new world where alternative facts are all the rage.
Averaged the 2nd most turnovers per game for us this year despite playing the majority of the year as a loose man in the easiest position on the ground. For reference, he was 4th for average disposals.
It was a really poor year for him disposal-wise. He's better than that, and we need him to be better than that next year.
-
1
-
Constitutional Review
in Melbourne Demons
Posted
Genuine question - Can you show me where that's happened? I've not followed super closely, but as already noted there has been some pretty harsh comments made about the Hawthorn process so far:
“I don’t want to tell people how to vote or what to think. That is not my go. But I am particularly concerned where effectively the current board and president have suppressed opposition or any dissent,” he said.
“They are effectively state-controlled media in how they use their own database and messaging. It is a members’ resource. If they want to use that for electioneering they should offer that to all people putting their hat in the ring.
Hawthorn legend Chris Langford weighs into bitter boardroom fight
Also, didn't Peter Lawrence just get access to the entire members database to contact them about his agenda?
I'm not rusted on to the current board at all. As is the same with the rest of us, we can only judge the board by the club's performances (not just on field), and by all accounts every aspect of that is tracking very very well. The home base is the fly in the ointment currently, but I don't put the entirety of that on the current board given the time span.
There's also a bit of trust required at times like this when things are running well that the mix of strengths is cohesive. I had no opinion either way on Lawrence when he originally agitated for the board, but after this fiasco IMO he has shown himself as not the correct temperament at all to be running my football club.
I just don't see why anyone would be agitating for change so fervently at the moment when things are good unless they had a personal connection to someone trying to get onto the board or a personal grievance with someone already currently on there.