Chook

Absolutely they are pessimistic numbers for us (and very optimistic for some of the other clubs). What I'm trying to ask - and maybe didn't put clearly - was that if other clubs make some rapid progress in the membership department (and thus likely in more important off-field areas), do people here think that the Melbourne Demons will exist as they are today, in ten years time? Will the AFL continue to carry a non-profitable team just because it holds the moniker of oldest club, founding club and the "Melbourne" name? I agree with Belzebub that membership numbers are not the greatest indicator of financial success, but you have to agree that they do correlate with (and probably cause) a rise in corporate dollars, sponsorship, attendance revenues, etc. Take the Crows, West Coast, Collingwood and Essendon for example. Is it just a coincidence that the have the largest membership numbers and the highest annual revenue? I doubt it. Same deal for Melbourne, the Bulldogs and the Kangas.

Can I just say that the most frustrating thing about being a Melbourne supporter is the totally skewed perception of us as rich supporters, when juxtaposed with the fact that the Demons are continually clutching at the precipice of financial oblivion. It doesn't make much sense, does it? That is something that has always bothered me about Melbourne's image. But does anybody really think that if in ten years time, the club membership tally is as follows, that Melbourne's position would not be under pressure? Adelaide Crows: 50 000 - 55 000 (I think the Crows will always be Australia's largest team - clearly from a state as mad about AFL as Victoria and without the dilution of supporter-base caused by having so many teams) Port Adelaide: 35 000 - 40 000 (off the back of some long-term success, driven by a new generation of players) West Coast Eagles: 42 000 - 50 000 (always going to be Freo's bigger brother) Fremantle: 40 000 - 45 000 (with some success, the Dockers could really get some good numbers) Brisbane Lions: 30 000 - 37 000 (will probably always be Queensland's major team) Gold Coast Kangaroos: 30 000 - 35 000 (with support from the populous Gold Coast, as well as many of its traditional Victorian supporters) Sydney Swans: 30 000 - 35 000 (with the Dogs' added competition, the Swans' could get some solid, unconditional loving from its Rugby-mad, in-and-out supporter base Penrith Bulldogs: 30 000 - 35 000 (with dual support in the Western suburbs of Australia's two largest cities, the Dogs could get some solid membership) Collingwood: 45 000 - 55 000 (the biggest club in Victoria, invariably supported by those brainless enough not to realize how disgusting this team is) Essendon: 43 000 - 50 000 (obviously one of the Big Two in Melbourne) Richmond: 40 000 - 45 000 (with some success, the Tigers still have the potential for some strong numbers) Carlton: 43 000 - 50 000 (after a resurgence driven by the Blues youth of today) Hawthorn: 30 000 - 38 000 (with some solid support from Tasmania) St. Kilda: 30 000 - 35 000 (same old, same old) Geelong: 33 000 - 40 000 (off the back of a dynasty that many believe the Cats will have had) Melbourne: 23 000 - 30 000 (absolute upper limit w/o major on-field success/major restructuring of the brand, i.e. moving or merging with Hawthorn/St. Kilda) Thoughts?

Absolutely right. Just how ridiculous is this whole Ben Cousins thing going to get? I really feel for his family, having to put up with all this attention and crap from "The Media." All that should happen now is that Ben undergoes treatment for as long as necessary to remove his biological and emotional need to take drugs. He is a fantastic player and obviously very committed once he sets his mind to achieving something (as he showed during his Brownlow year). I really hope to see him back in Australia and taking part in the game he loves - in whatever capacity - before too long,

I don't think the risk is very high - nor was it for Byron. Ashley Sampi is capable of playing good footy and won't cost much, whereas Trapper cost a bloody arm and a leg and only delivered half the time. And as for Sampi living with Aaron Davey, I can't think of any better way for him to kick start his career in a cold, dreary city than with an upstanding member of the Brotherhood. Give the bloke a shot, I say. At the very least, a year or two down the line, we'll have had a player - retired or delisted - who was able to give himself a second chance to play the game he loves - and at minimal risk to the club he played for.

Bloody unreal. Poor guy. Thanks for the info.

I think that the captaincy will remain with Neita for the 2008 season, with Brock McLean, Junior and Green taking the mantle for games in which the Big Fella is injured or (perhaps) rested. Their performances as captains during these games - as well as their off-field leadership - will probably determine which of the three will become captain in 2009. While I think that we should pick a long-term captain to replace Neitz after he retires, I don't necessarily agree with "just giving" it to Chook. If you look at the performances of St. Kilda's recent young, one-year captains, none - with the exception of Lenny Hayes - have been able to play consistently or injury-free during their respective years as skipper. This is particularly true with Nick Reiwoldt and Luke Ball (whom, incidentally, I view to be very similar in talent, mindset and injury-proneness, to McLean.) The most important thing for Melbourne now - as we have such a young list - is to get the most out of our aging players, not only performance-wise, but also in terms of their ability to lead and teach new players. Having said that, however, in order to maximise Neita's longevity as a player and leader, I believe he should be rested a couple of games this year, which may enable him to give one more, unburdened, captaincy-free season in 2009 - one in which he is able to maximise his goal-scoring ability while minimising his risk of injury. In 2009, Melbourne, with its group of young stars; Bate, Jonesy, Newton, (hopefully) Sylvia, Rivers and Moloney - with McLean as captain and on-ball giant, accompanied by good seasons from aging players such as Green (played only in the forward line), Bruce (forward, bench and midfield), Junior, Robbo and Neita in his last year, may have its first real crack at a flag since 2000's inevitable loss to Essendon.

I think that's true. Whether we will always be the Melbourne Demons is probably the real question. I'm not old enough to remember, but around the time of the Dees' proposed merger with Hawthorn, weren't we going to be called the Melbourne Hawks? But I think that the Kangaroos' move to the Gold Coast is good for Melbourne. No doubt the Roos will lose a few disillusioned Victorian supporters and members - obviously gaining many more in Queensland - many of whom may find another local club to support. While they may not feel as strongly for Melbourne as supporters who have grown up in the Red and Blue, perhaps their children may. It may not happen within the next three or four years, but a less crowded Melbourne is good for all clubs - particularly the Demons and the Dogs.

Fantastic news. I Remember the first time I saw him play was in a Zebras game in his first year and he was absolutely stunning. The first thing I thought - right after "what the hell is this guy doing not in Red and Blue" - was that he would win a Brownlow during his career. Easily my favourite player. Come on, Chook. Go Dees!