Flying Cloud

Just for info and so that the journo's don't go down this band wagon again, Melbourne was the 6th best funded club in 2010 by the AFL, and in a band of 5 clubs receiveing between $8.7m and $9m. Compared with the funding that the Bulldogs and North continue to recieve there is no way that people can claim that we are getting special treatment. Also make sure any Collingwood whingers are told teh facts next time they say they are propping up the other clubs - 2 years in a row now they have been in the top 4 recipients - admitedly some of that is due to prize money for finals. Adelaide 7,713,536 Brisbane Lions 7,821,850 West Coast 7,871,174 Fremantle 7,969,640 Port Adelaide 7,988,806 Hawthorn 8,242,014 Geelong 8,706,138 Richmond 8,740,581 Essendon 8,828,287 Sydney Swans 8,873,054 Melbourne 8,965,924 Carlton 9,641,916 North Melbourne 9,809,944 St Kilda 9,851,727 Collingwood 10,291,860 Bulldogs 10,661,507 Source AFL 2010 Annual Report

May have been pointed out elsewhere, but if we remove the 3rd qtr (which of course we can't) the score was Melbourne 11.4 70 to Dorks 8.15 63. We did have one very bad quarter. Totally unaceptable. But not yet time to throw it all away.

No knee jerk reaction, and I am sure many considered opinions on this thread and other are correct. But as a member and a supporter think I have the right to think yesterday's performance was pathetic and that the team and the coaches had better lift their game. I am not going to sit back and tell them it will be OK. If they don't pull their finger out then this sort of shellacking will continue.

The inside 50s bit is easy to understand. In the 3rd quarter all 18 Melbourne players plonked themselves in the Hawks 50m arc. Yeah sure we kicked it out a few times but there was no Melbourne player there to get it. So surprise surprise it came back in. One suggested change for next week.... Have a couple of players from our team somewhere near our goals.

Somethingthat has been on my mind for awhile and Jimmy has obviously picked up on it aswell. http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/youngsters-forced-to-lie-stynes-20110327-1cbvy.html Jimmy is basically saying that the AFL has created a situation where youngplayers are being asked to lie. I would take it further. We have had all the lying going on over at Essendonlast year with coaches, and of course the business with Ricky Nixon and thecarry on of the 17 Year Old school girl. The AFL is right to teach the players morals in regard to respect for women andracism, and also to have a hard line on illicit drugs, BUT they have totally lost all credibility when they then turn around and condone lying. They should rescind the rule straight away and name any players who have already signed. And it may be a bit late but they should reprimand and fine Essendon for bringing the game into disrepute for all the lying that went on over there. But of course they won't.

From the afl.com.au In the Davey case, the match review panel found that after viewing the available television footage, speaking to the umpire and receiving a written medical report from the Sydney Swans, it could not be determined if there was forceful high contact to the head or neck of player McGlynn. He was guessing - dreadful umpiring all day. http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/110222/default.aspx

Pretty much my sentiments as well. And at least this has put the Scully non-story onto the back burner. Gees I wish the season would start soon.

Probably not an ideal situation but - - We will never be a great club if we can't deal with a few set-backs like this - I am sure there are plenty of other VFL players who could be a bad influence on our young players - at least with Fev we can be forewarned. - If Fev plays well then our new recruits will just have to work harder to get a spot in Casey 1sts. That can only be a good thing.

2009 total payments from the AFL Annual Report show the total payments The press seems to get hung up on the Special Distribution, but it is far more complex than that. Payments to each club were a base of $5,673,242 and then Other Payments which includes Special Distribution, game buy-out agreements, distribution of the AFL's signage rights at Etihad Stadium, prizemoney, travel subsidies and promotional funding to help clubs develop the game around Australia. These "Other Payments" range from $1.7M for Adelaide to $4.7M for the Bulldogs, Collingwood $3.9M and Melbourne 3.1M. It does not say if it includes payments from AFL Membership. Adelaide 7,406,705 Fremantle 7,495,936 West Coast 7,545,570 Brisbane 7,552,619 Port 7,592,931 Hawthorn 8,207,374 Sydney 8,383,047 Richmond 8,404,196 Essendon 8,549,490 St Kilda 8,750,425 Melbourne 8,809,616 Geelong 9,021,578 Collingwood 9,068,940 Carlton 9,201,340 North Melbourne 9,411,077 Bulldogs 10,406,678 2010 Annual report should be out later in March. I'll do an update then. (Seem to have stuufed up the font somehow - sorry)

Too much negativity going on for my liking. The Dees are on TV tonight and the real season is about to start and I just can't wait to get to the G and start barracking for the greatest team on earth. Carn the Dees!!

If he is going to get $1 million a year then we would have to get a number one draft pick. Anything less would say that he is being overpaid.

The game has been cancelled due to predicted bad weather. Pity, I was looking forward to some footy on TV tonight. Will just have to wait another week to see Aaron, Jamie and LJ. AFL All-Stars match called off

If it wasn’t Scully we were talking about here then I would almost be wishing for GWS to pay $6 million over 6 years. This is surely an “all your eggs in the one basket” scenario. According to the AFL press release from last year http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=86208 Team GWS might have as many as 59 players on its list in its first three seasons at AFL level. By 2019 it will fall into line with its AFL rivals and have 38 senior-listed players. Its TPP (Total Player Payments) allowance will be paid at a rate of $60,000 per additional player it has on its list, plus the average veterans' allowance (approx $375,000) currently applied to existing AFL clubs. “What’s important about that is it’s not a bucket of spare money and down the track you pay players over and above the odds,” Demetriou said. “I mean they actually need that money because they’ve got more players on their list." In real figures, from 2012-2014 Team GWS is set to receive between an additional $640,000 and $1 million. So the more players they have the less there is to go around because minimum payments are more than $60,000. GWS will therefore receive $375,000 extra under the cap compared with other teams. The 2011 salary cap is $8,212,500. So if they pay Sculley $1m a year that leaves $7.875 million over 37 players, best case. That’s just over $200k a player. If they have 2 players on $1m a year that leaves only $185K a year for the remainder of the squad. Sheedy and GWS would need to make a call as to if any player was worth signing up for $1 million over 6 years. There are all sorts of issues with this.. If he is injured long term they have in affect blown any salary cap advantage they may have had If they decide to trade him later (say he wants to return home) they may have to make significant payments to another club for an extended time frame If they have to pay him out due to indiscretions (unlikely I know – but) say in year 3 they have to take a $3 million hit to their cap – that would kill them. And from a player management point of view – what incentive is there for someone with a guaranteed $1m a year. I am sure Tom doesn’t need money as an incentive, but 6 years is a long time and people change – particularly when they are being paid $1 million a year. Ablett was a different proposition – he is older, presumably wiser and had a proven track record – and he didn’t get a 6 year contract.

Resisted commenting all day but ... The fact that they voted for Qatar tells me that it is a great thing we didn't get this event. I can't help but think that the whole of FIFA senior people has lost the plot, and is run by people who have totally lost any sense of reality. Happens when there is undemocratic organisation with too much money and very little accountability. Aparently Qatar is going to dismantle some of the stadium and donate them to disadvantaged countries. So Qatar "may" (they will have already have held the event) ship their white elephants off to countries where people are crying for basics. Not that I am a Soccer hater. My son played for 4 years. I stuck at it despite high levels of parent anger on the sidelines and coach flattening an umpire on the pitch (and he wasn't even sacked). Last straw was when they hiked the fees $250 to $450 for the year. it wasn't the money, but the reason. I asked why and the response "There are so may kids who want to play we can charge what we like and the senior team needs the money". I suppose that some of this happens in footy as well, but I don't see it in my son's team, so can't comment. Also used to watch it on TV, but is just too easy for a game to be influenced by diving or a poor refereeing decision. Not blaming the refs, just they make mistakes and in such a close game can decide the game. Actually best reason for not getting the World Cup of Associate Football is their local supporters. If there is one thing worse than a Collingwood supporter is a one eyed soccer supporter.. "Aussie Rules isn't football, they use their hands...." "We have to accept Soccer coz it's the World Game, and we are so backward in Australia coz we don't follow it..." Sorry bit of a ramble Bet we will have forgotten it all in a week's time.

According to the Hun article from September 19, 2009 there's more to it than the Wedding Crasher incident. Jack of hearts - Magpie fans love Jack Anthony The line that worries me most is "Honest to the point of abrasive, and with a raft of personality quirks, he was thought by rival recruiters to be uncoachable. Refusing to answer to his birth name John - Jack had a better ring to it - he struggled to find his niche at the club." Everyone can change, but would prefer to take a punt on a 18 year old who fits the job description, than someone who isn't quite the right fit AND may destabilise the team.

In 2000 including all games came 3rd behind Essendon and Carlton, so we can do better. Interesting we did very well this year compared with both Saints and Bulldogs if you look at just home and away.

Last line of the announcements says.. "At this stage, the Demons will have four selections in the November NAB AFL Draft and five picks in the NAB AFL Rookie Draft.At this stage, the Demons will have four selections in the November NAB AFL Draft and five picks in the NAB AFL Rookie Draft." So could be leaving the gate open. I for one think we need to keep him, but agree with the club playing hardball.

Only 4 interstate games, with one of those being at TIO where we have a good record is a pretty good draw.

Good call Old Dee. What I am missing though is that by 2 PM tommorrow (29th) we need to have list one done. This is rookie promotions, retained second-year rookies, retained third-year international rookies, retained third-year non-registered rookies. Have we done this?

Don't know about others, but I am a bit surprised we have left news on our 1st list lodgement so late.

Must be from October 30 or November 1, otherwise would stuff up payment to the players and the salary cap. I would guess that when a trade is done on a contracted player, the trade comes into affect from 1 November. Besides there would still need to be paperwork to complete. The trade paperwork lodged today would just be the notification to the AFL, the actual contract signing would have to be done later (many players are still o'seas) . I don't believe that you can actually transfer a player (employee) under contract to a new employer, it would require the agreement of the player, and hence their signature on the contract.

Enough change already! only thing to be fixed is the "scrums" that are developing, 1 player at ball - one tackler, none of this piling on top - easy to fix just pay for in back or head high

Just thought it may be interesting to see..... Dees had 15 players who got votes, beaten only by Collingw^&*, Geelong and Sydney Suggests a great all round equally balanced team Also most votes go to the winning team, so if you go by votes per games won (give a draw half a point) then Melbourne came second after West Coast Stats courtesy of The Hun

I would so love to see a mini coll&*() "empire" destroyed by the rising Dee's. Say they get to the next 4 GFs (2010 to 2013), win one (this year or next - who cares) and then loose the following 2 to the Dee's, with the following year (2014) seeing them sack McGuire, Malthouse and Buckley and finish last. On second thought it would be even better if they got to the next 4 GFs and lost all of them. The rest of above I'd leave the same.

Try the pictures at Melbourne Demons