rpfc

Online shopping is easier to get right and do well. And its more beneficial to the club as we get a bigger cut. Fans not seeing merchandise in stores is a peripheral issue really.

You have complained in the past at others, invariably Machsy, being abusive toward you - and here you are being indignant. If you don't like this community, mjt, there is no law or academic requirement I have heard of that keeps a person here.

I know the opinion of him on Big Footy - but that means as much as the thoughts of some Landers on Gysberts, Morton, and Maric... From what I have seen he is a courageous player and a terrific tackler - always aiming for the hips. He, like Michie, another we are excited about due to the online whining of opposition supporters, will have plenty of opportunity in our midfield.

I honestly don't think that there is a population of posters who think the above large enough to warrant this hubris. Neeld was a disastrous failure - that is an opinion that will not find much disagreement. When posters want to talk about the context of the mess we find ourselves in we cannot simply start with October 2011 and the hiring of Mark Neeld. The reasons for our current malaise begin well before the rot set in, well before our malaise started, and - like a skipping stone - the reasons why we continued to struggle continued through the Bailey Era and into the Neeld Era. If you and BB wish to rank coaches - that is a very short thread: Daniher, Bailey, Neeld. Happy?

They can be coupled together with Daniher's last few years to explain the decisions that left us with the list that we are left with. Would it be better to say the 'Eras' of these coaches? As opposed the men themselves? The Bailey Era is lumped with the other failed eras because that is what they are. The latter half of the Daniher Era saw the MFC trade away picks and brought in discarded help because he thought he was close to a flag. The start of the Bailey Era was stunted by the 'retirings' of seasoned pros that had a few years left with the pros that had no years left, The Bailey Era then saw no mature bodies brought into the club to restock save for Meesen and MacDonald, with the 'siren call' of the draft beckoning we were at the mercy of a skill we have never been quite adept - choosing the right teenagers, especially at the pointy end of the draft. The claims of poor development are not without cause, but are left somewhat moot by the fact that Morton, Gysberts and Cook have been abandoned by the AFL at large. The Neeld Era shook this tree and while saving us another year of Morton and Gysberts left the confidence of a young, talent-bereft team in tatters. Losing Moloney for nothing was a headache, nearly losing a number of players if he had stayed would have been an embarrassing disaster similar to what the Lions had to endure this past off-season. All throughout these eras has been an abject inability to pick talent in the draft. The cupboard was bare and hopefully the last two drafts are filled with successes, because we need them.

What I mean is that the repercussions in the 90s to salary cap irregularities, terrible draft choices from 2001, trades (Holland, Pickett), and 'retiring' of seasoned pros in the urge to get younger after 2007 make up the reasons for why we are where we are. The reasons behind those failures are for the purposes of blame arrangement and that is a waste when it such a shared arrangement. Good decisions need to be made on most things from here on in. That's what matters.

This disaster we are in, and hopefully coming out of soon, has been a skipping stone since the late nineties. The lines of blame are so wide as to render them useless for judgement. Anyone saying that Neeld was when the rot started is revising history. And, ADC, anyone making nazi comparisons is belittling history.

Are you having a stroke live on the internet? Is that what this is?

Yep, the pool man in his red shorts... That's it. No red shorts.

Bump. The bloke is at it again: http://www.melbournefc.com.au/news/2014-01-31/garland-focuses-on-44th-player I love this. Maia Westrupp would make 45 but splitting hairs can be a waste of time. Our 4 rookies may get paid less and have less opportunities and security but they should be treated as equals in a well run club.

Do you remember a couple of years ago when the Bummers wore them in a few away games against Richmond? Talk about a terrible 80s throwback... It was like our light blue abortion or Boy George; something from another time that should be left for the pens of historians and the amazement of time travellers.

An infestation of none?

I left that out because we are talking about specific drafting and list management decisions (and sanctions) not the management or executive that brought about those errors (and sanctions). One begets the other of course.

No, Stuie, you tried to equate two people's refrains about staying at the club when one of them had no choice to stay. You don't get to act like the demurring, bemused victim. Just deal with the fact that most of us do not think you internetted properly. It happens to the best of us.

I really couldn't care less about that frontrunner but the way he was handled from a purely 'protection of assets' standpoint was stultifying. Dropping him late in the season and keeping him out of the side and then all but stating that we wouldn't give him another contract was naive in the extreme in this new FA landscape where the AFL give compensation for important, or seemingly important, players leaving. The damage is done, but it is a rich story that might be a disaster documentary on List Management one day... List Management decisions made from the end of 2007 to 2012 and drafting from 2001 to 2011, and penalties from salary cap cheating in the late 90s are why we are in the mess we are in.

You are trying to make it simple to fit your point. It doesn't fit. Move on.

Well, we aim to be well run don't we? And since you are using the present tense - are we not 'well run' now? Decisions surrounding trades and draft picks are rarely accurately judged until years after the fact. But I am quietly confident about the Tyson deal, and I am loudly confident about the Hogan/Viney deal.

Red shorts look terrible. Our options are minimal.

No, he comprehended it just fine. Moloney was not offered a contract so it makes your 'he also left after supposedly bleeding red and blue' refrain rather moot.

Supporters do feel that way, which is why we lost thousands upon thousands of supporters in the 70s and early 80s and now after 2007.

It's not bad... The reverse Carlton won't find many fans on here though.

An admirable stance with one aspect I can't overlook - this 'charade' was not a 'charade' when Jack Watts did it last year. As you note, the Free Agnecy Era has begun and that means that October is the power month of the year, as clubs and players have to wait until then to negotiate (or do it a year in advance like Ablett and Scully). This means that waiting and delaying talks is the future and more and more players will be doing this. The renewal of contracts months before they have finished is foreign to most salary cap and draft regulated sports. It is very rare in the NFL and the NBA. And emotional ties are fine, as long as one doesn't prematurely burn those ties because a Demon isn't re-signing on blind faith 8 months before his contract ends.

That may be best for your personal sanity but there is emotional involvement because he would be making a judgment call on our club. We celebrate when they get a kick, and sign a contract, to say that we can be so detached about one of our more important player leaving is delusional. And yet there are many who routinely expect the insane, and damned a sane Watts last year for his delay and obsfucation. Ok - I have a thread out there somewhere that I will bump if this continues into the latter half of the season but the clift notes: - Frawley is a RFA (and we are assuming that he is in the top 10 paid players at the club - if he is then he can go anywhere for anything) - Clubs can offer him a contract in October (or already has been offered last October) - IF Frawley agrees to that contract, AND if we decide to 'match' that offer (a HUGE if due to the fact that you don't want to keep players who want to leave and he would net a very good pick) there are two possibilities at this stage: 1 - he signs with our 'matched' contract so we keep him on someone else's terms, OR Frawley decides to go into the National or Pre-Season Draft. I will repeat that last line because many don't understand - Restricted Free Agents can still go into the National or Pre-Season Drafts instead of staying at their club. Possible Outcomes: Frawley stays on our terms. OR Frawley stays on someone else's terms. OR Frawley leaves and we get approx. Nat Draft Pick 5. OR Frawley leaves through the Draft and we get nothing. The first and third options are far more likely than the second and fourth options.

I am not going to get too worked up about this as I can't corroborate the story but this is no way to select a Leadership Group. The parameters can be different but the playing group should be represented, and led, by those they wish to be represented by.